Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting

ancestry

"Afghani" is not a descent or a an ethnicity, it is the name of the money currency in Afghanistan. "Afghan" is someone who is of afghan nationality. Afghanistan is composed of multiple ethnic groups so there is no such thing as being of "afghan" descent. It is unclear whether he is of pashtun,tajik, pamiri, nuristani, etc heritage. The the four aforementined ethnic groups are very similar, there arw still many more he could be of.There are also hints that his father may not actually be afghan

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/#

I say keep "Afghani descent" out of the article unless it's in a "personal life" or "early life" section, but keep the muslim part as that's relevant to the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckold12345 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Afghani can be kept for accuracy. More precise ethnicity can be inserted in the later sections. Muslim is relevant, but what is the evidence this head an islamic motivation? --197.228.0.8 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pledging allegiance to ISIS indicates that this was Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ancestry 2

It is politically correct to say that someone is of "afghan descent." Afghan is a nationality, and Afghans come from different ethnic groups. It is unclear which he comes from. So again, putting that he is of "afghan descent" is unnecessary unless it's in a personal life or early life section as the rules state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckold12345 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Far too politically correct

What the majority of people use is the correct term. Because it is our term and not theirs. English is not a scientific language based on total accuracy, many words are formed through 'incorrect terms'. And also, the "Afghani" people do not call themselves "Afgahani" or "Afghan" or "Afghan decent", because English is not their native language, so it is irrelevant what English term is applied to them. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another thing to note, "Afghani" is not derogatory. It is simply the term most English speakers and Americans use. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While I've seen Afghani used to denote ethnicity, Afghan seems more common. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither are incorrect, but Afghani is probably used more than Afghan among the people. Bear in mind the majority of Americans are not in a college environment. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If this form is kept, it should at least be altered to "2016 Orlando shooting", as it was one incident of shooting, not a series.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I've changed it. StewdioMACK (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that the murder of Christina Grimmie also happened in Orlando this week, I'd suggest making the title "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" to be more specific. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd go further and put it as 2016 Pulse Nightclub Shooting, as either of those names are too generic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The name of the club is Pulse Orlando, so the article should be Pulse Orlando shooting. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"2016 Orlando shooting" isn't specific enough, and the gunman seems to have targeted the club. The official website of the club seems to be offline at the moment, but is on the Wayback Machine here and simply names the club as Pulse.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; we do have 2012 Aurora shooting, but unless it is changed to "Pulse Orlando," this seems like the best option. United States Man (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that Orlando isn't in the title. "2016 Pulse nightclub shooting" isn't very specific either. "2016 Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting" is a bit of a mouthful but might be better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I think "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" might be more fitting. Crumpled Fire (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the club's actually called Pulse Orlando or Orlando Pulse, that'd be perfect, by my eye. ("Pulse Orlando shooting", that is. No year or "nightclub".) InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I also like "Orlando nightclub" over "Pulse nightclub" or "Orlando Pulse nightclub". Should we move the article? United States Man (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Crumpled Fire (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Went ahead with that name change. United States Man (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We have now to his full name Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, his birthdate 16 November 1986 (source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.141.24 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is already documented in the article. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Should it not be punctuated correctly? The title, that is. Asigkem (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose we change it to "2016 Orlando terror attack" or something that implies it was a terror attack as some sort of ISIL affiliate (I'd be more detailed but I'm actually posting this on break at work) has claimed responsibility and the FBI is investigating as well and they usually only get involved in shootings and whatnot when they suspect terrorism, as well as the fact that many media outlets are referring to it as a terror attack. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. Or don't thank him. I'm Binary code, not a cop. 20:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Orlando nightclub attack would probably be a better name for the time being. It would be much more in-line with the naming of the 2015 San Bernardino attack. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note, though I applied move protection it was only to match edit protection - editorially I'm fine with both 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reactions section

Delete the reactions section already?

This is always the second contentious issue in a mass shooting article, after the name. Everyone's going to say the same thing. We don't need to repeat the same thing, and we don't need to list everyone (or anyone) who says it. We don't need the section at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it can at least wait until things die down. United States Man (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A small but representative sample is OK. No doubt President Obama will have something to say. However, we don't need an exhaustive list with flag icons lighting up the page like a Christmas tree and people expressing their condolences, which has happened before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some guy is "leaving it up in case it turns out to be workplace violence." At least that's a new reason. Does it make sense to anyone? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:37, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

There is only one reaction, why delete? XavierItzm (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because one thing leads to another. People see shit in Google News, they see a Reaction section here, something clicks and the pile grows. We're powerless to stop it, really, but it's always nice to try. Since you're here, what does workplace violence have to do with anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

The San Bernardino terror attack was initially classified as a possible workplace violence incident: "It's also possible that this was was workplace related," Obama said" http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/

OK. So what does the San Bernardino shooting have to do with this? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Well, couldn't this Orlando situation be another workplace violence incident, like Fort Hood? Even the FBI for now only "suspects" a link to Islam in Orlando. By way of contrast, Fort Hood is officially classified as "workplace violence" (see wikipedia: " The Defense Department currently classifies Hasan's attack as an act of workplace violence" Better not jump to conclusions yet. XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the most confusing bit for me is how this reaction doesn't mention workplace violence, Islam, Fort Hood, San Bernardino or whatever. Just condolences and getting to the bottom of things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that this was "workplace"-related, and what little is known about Mateen strongly suggests otherwise. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You could say exactly the same about San Bernardino, yet the maximum political authority in the United States initially stated it could be workplace violence. You could also say the same about Fort Hood, yet until today it is officially classified as "workplace violence." So, this could eventually also be classified as "workplace violence," don't you think? Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My only problem is it getting cluttered with unnecessary junk. If we can keep that down, it will be good. United States Man (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We just got our first "thoughts and prayers" from an entirely uninvolved politician. I give it an hour before Trudeau shows up. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise, maybe it could be put in a collapsable section

Reactions 2

I would like to suggest that we limit reactions from politicians to the mayor, the governor, and the president, especially since it's an election season.- MrX 16:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See "Delete the reactions section already?" above. Agreed on not getting bogged down here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the existing section.- MrX 16:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Individuals who don't have current jurisdiction over the incident do not need to be quoted. I'd be OK with legislators representing Orlando/Florida. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to include some notable reactions from major political figures internationally. This does not interfere with the election and is very common for such articles. AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Britain has its own problems. Reading that Cameron didn't like this teaches nobody anything useful. But yeah, if something actually notable is said, maybe.InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

"Don't quite see the connection with the EU referendum to be perfectly honest. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see the connection to this incident. His condolescences are appreciated, but (with all respect) he's just some guy from another country telling us what he thinks. There are a lot of those, and they don't add understanding to the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all that meant. That's his business, this is Orlando, Florida and Washington's. And this wasn't meant to sound anti-Francophone. Picked an arbitrary celebrity, then thought better of it after I saved. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely not include international reactions, which will be predictably trite and critical of US gun control. Just say no to soapboxing.- MrX 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am outraged that we don't have a separate article with lost of nice colourful flags and the identical reactions on Twitter of the foreign secretaries of Seychelles, East Timor, Nauru and Suriname. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not start getting defensive about gun control, now. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Same with the governor of Idaho or the mayor of Miami or [insert famous actor here]... they're uninvolved bystanders, whose opinions are no more notable than mine. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we should have a laundry list of reactions (all essentially saying the same thing) from foreign officials around the world. I would be OK with a generic overview sentence, if desired ("Following the shooting, condolences were sent from many foreign heads of state and government around the world" + cites). Neutrality^talk 17:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's usually the compromise. Best to find a compilation article, rathen than clutter up the reference section. Something like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need a list of quotes, but we should add a summary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The international reactions section has been re-started now by several editors AusLondonder (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions again

The article is developing exactly the sort of flagcruft section that was warned against and consensus is against. Time for a prune, but I don't want to edit war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mostly major countries like India, Brazil and the UK are listed along with the reaction of the first Muslim to be elected Mayor of London. That's not flagcruft. There may have been a weak consensus against before but new editors have added the material. Let them have a say here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the exhaustive list (which threatens to overwhelm the article as it grows and grows inexorably) with a two-sentence summary (diff). I think it is especially a bad idea to directly cite to Tweets. We should absolutely wait for the press to synthesize all this, rather than attempt to do it ourselves. Neutrality^talk 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I support your change, this is a much better approach. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pope

• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/12/pope-francis-condemns-massacre-at-florida-nightclub.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not really needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Really? The pope's reaction to an event is not worth mentioning? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we post this we might as well post all international responses, which were initially listed but later removed per consensus. So I'd only support adding Pope comments if other international reactions are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the Pope's reaction is not worth mentioning, any more than the Dalai Lama's is.- MrX 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pope is technically a head of state, so I'd say it's more worth mentioning as much as any other head of state. That's only if all international responses are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a brief paragraph summarizing reactions by notable individuals would be appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now comments by Lars Løkke Rasmussen have been added. I realize we don't need a list of people and their quotes, but this article should note that people around the world are responding to this incident. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that international statements are back in the article, I'd have no objection to adding the Pope's comments. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe a section about an international response, including the Pope's, should be included. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Gun control reactions

There will likely be some notable reactions, but right now the only entry is a report that one lawmaker plans to introduce a bill that doesn't seem to be directly related to this subject or the perpetrator - should this be maintained? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it me ...

Or is this section bloatcrufty again? (No, I don't care that "bloatcrufty" is not a word. ) 🖖ATS / Talk 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not just you... wish we could get site-wide consensus about these sections... (preferably to do away with them) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume there will be a discussion about the appropriateness of Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

50 dead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several outlets appear to be reporting 50 dead (USATODAY) - most are reporting 20; have any retractions of the 50 number been publised? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

None have been published yet, but all major media is now reporting 50. I expect sources to follow. United States Man (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

AP is reporting 50 casualties, including shooter, and 53 hospitalized in mass shooting at Orlando nightclub. Officials speaking at the recent press conference also seem to be going with the figure of 50 fatalities Ashenst8 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

People are conflating "casualties" with "dead." XavierItzm (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, that is what I think as well. But, we have to go with the sources. They seem hell-bent on 50. United States Man (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too, when it was the The Washington Post, but then the British news (the good ones, not The Daily Mail) said it. I tried to revert myself, but United States Man beat me to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Early reports said "20", later reports say "50", probably because previously-injured people have since died and more deaths have been confirmed. It is common for death tolls to go up like this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The later point appears to be one of the key reasons, in particular it was suggested that need to check for any unexploded bombs or booby traps meant it was a while before it was possible to start even a proper basic examination of the scene. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The media can often get things wrong in these highly charged late breaking news situations but it seems this case they made the correct call as the figure has been out there for a while, but no one AFAIK has corrected it. Casualties generally includes more then the dead, but in this case it seems it was referring only to the dead. The media probably figured based on the fact that the 20 figure was referring to the number of dead not injured+dead and also that that the 50 figure wasn't including those hospitalised. (The later meant either casualties was referring to both people who were dead or injured (which given the length of time would surely mean these people's injuries weren't serious enough) but not injured people who had been hospitalised, a fairly weird combination. Or it was referring only to those dead.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox of perpetrator

Do we need the infobox of the perpetrator in this article? I've seen some articles of shootings with and without one and it doesn't seem to fit correctly in right now. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It could wait, although Sandy Hook does have one. United States Man (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it, like the other terrorist attacks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've temporarily commented it out - it does appear to be OK for general inclusion, however with the article being short it appears very high on the page for most resolutions - development on the box data should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it, this is what we've always done, gives an overview of the terrorist without having to create a whole page about him that could be used to glorify him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC vote, and not all terrorist attack pages have an infobox of its perpetrator(s). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; let it stay but hide it for now. United States Man (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The initial inclusion was organic, so in WP:BRD I'm find with taking the bold stance in the hide, I was reverted no big deal: let's discuss further - though my main concern should go away soon as the article content continues to expand. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I "re-hid" it, and I think that is what is supported now. United States Man (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look kinda weird now that there isn't a lot of info on him. Let's make it appear once there's enough. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it will reappear later. This is only temporary. United States Man (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The general use should be OK, and comparing to say 2015 Chattanooga shootings - and once the page gets built out a bit more it should fit right in - this is the top ITN and a national news story now, so maintaining balance and accuracy is very important to our readers right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I expect within the day the content will grow to make this lay out better. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we get about 3 more paragraphs of text in the Incident, Investigation, and Victims sections this should be good to unhide in general. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the page seems to have grown enough for this to be balanced now, at most resolutions it is "beneath the fold". Thank you all above for working together on this. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why has the perpetrator page been removed? A lone wolf attacker causing the largest terror attack in US after 11 September attacks is important enough to have an article dedicated to him. isoham (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

Is it appropriate to use an image here? Other than the map, this would be the only article image. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suppose another imagine would be alright to use in the article (such as the club or crime scene evidence), however using a picture of the perpetrator would need discussion. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has added an image - I don't really have an opinion on to if it should be included or not right now though. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

That's always the third issue, after the name and the reactions. Shall we wait for investigators to determine motives for once, or continue to follow the catchy headlines, and display a gigantic terrorism infobox and tiny category listing? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Some caution needed. I always remember the media deciding initially that the 2011 Norway attacks were likely the work of Islamic extremists, but as we know now, a single white extremist was responsible. Details will emerge about the shooter, but sometimes a motive is harder to pin down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This could be workplace violence, exactly like the mass shooting in Fort Hood in 2009, or like San Bernardino, which was originally considered to possibly have been a workplace violence incident. Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Perp's father now claiming it has "nothing to do with religion" and was prompted by the perp's reaction to seeing gay men kissing a few months earlier. More reason to exercise caution in regard to the motive. Crumpled Fire (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Devout Muslim" label, sourced Fox News, seems debatable too.--Dans (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be pretty politically incorrect to imply that a Quran-inspired attack had something to with Islam in the article, but that's the truth and we will have more sources on it soon as the police will release details. --Pudeo' 15:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's be careful here and not jump to conclusions. These things may seem "obvious" years after with the benefit of hindsight, but this is still very much a breaking news/developing story. I would shy away from ascribing motives as of now, short of a mention that various leads are being pursued. GAB^gab 15:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell what was going on inside the head of a mass shooter at the time, particularly if he died in the incident. We still don't really know why Adam Lanza carried out the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Mateen may have left behind some sort of manifesto explaining his actions, but if he hasn't, a certain amount of joining the dots will be needed to figure out why he did it. Tabloid sourcing should be avoided in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

One of Wiki's strengths in reporting is that we don't have to sell papers or collect hits today. We will all know so much more in a few hours, and infinitely more tomorrow. It's fine to wait. Profhum (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, terror isn't terrorism, and "terror attack" is merely a suggestive buzzword. Fools a lot of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

It's getting increasingly clear (CNN, Fox, and RT have said it) that this was an Islamic Terrorism incident. Additionally, there are chances this may be linked to ISIS. This should be put into infobox. isoham (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"there are chances this may be" doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we shall wait then until it is verified, which it obviously will. Since the reports now say that it wasn't just an Islamic Terrorism incident, but more specifically, an attack claimed by ISIS as well. isoham (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS. I'd consider that indicative of Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The boy who flew into the Bank of America building with a handwritten note pinned to himself shortly after 9/11, the note saying he pldged allegiance to Al Qaeda, wasn't literally a member. Lone wolves who pledge allegiance to a group to make a point may then be retroactively affiliated by the group to claim credit. It may well be terrorism, it may be homophobia, but none of that means ISIS is 'behind' this or that his motivations and affiliations are self-evident. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather good arguments. -Mardus /talk 06:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIS probably wasn't directly involved & I'm not suggesting that ISIS should be called the perpetrator of this attack. However, the pledge indicates that this was Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus so far seems to be that his claim of allegiance with ISIS has not been substantiated. This being the case, I think it's wise to edit out things on the page that identify this as being an Islamic terrorist attack.

• "Mateen's parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he'd expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami, but they didn't consider him particularly religious and didn't know of any connection he had to ISIS."

• "But CNN's Salma Abdelaziz, who translated the message and closely monitors ISIS messaging, cautioned about taking the message at face value. She said the language is inconsistent with previous ISIS announcements and that the Arabic word for gay was used rather than an epithet normally used by ISIS. Also, there was no claim that the attack was directed, just an after-the-fact claim the gunman was an ISIS fighter, she said."

Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm frankly disappointed by this morning's newspapers. They have taken a thinly sourced "pledge of allegiance" and inflated it into an IS attack. This contradicts the police lone wolf theory. The evidence now suggests that Omar Mateen was an extremist crank and loser like Wade Page in the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, who is not described as a "Christian terrorist".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear this is an act of Islamic Terrorism. We now have confirmation of his pledge of allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS have formally claimed responsibility (though I can't attest to whether or not they are telling the truth). Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, it's disappointing how the newspapers have handled this. The police are looking at the lone wolf theory, the same as Wade Page. No-one in Syria told Mateen to do this, it just looks better for the newspapers to scream "Islamic terror attack" on the front pages. They weren't screaming "Christian terror attack" after the Wisconsin Sikh temple attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur. -Mardus /talk 15:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki has become the newspaper of record

I realized, after the French terrorist attacks last year, that these days I had begun turning in frustration to the Wiki Talk page instead of to the New York Times. The media, both liberal and conservative, were all invested in one political position or another. Each article could have been titled, "See? I told you so!" and the facts selected were skewed to prove that. I got tired of wading through the Root Causes and turned here. I hope all you editors and writers can keep up those standards. Profhum (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. GAB^gab 16:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. OfficialNeon (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Gun used

the wikipedia page lists him using an "assault rifle", he used an AR-15, which is actually a semi-automatic rifle.

the confusion likely arises from police reporting it was an "AR-15-type assault rifle"

real assault rifles in the USA are banned seeing as they're automatic.

sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-orlando-police-report-controlled-explosion-39789724

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-about-20-dead-in-domestic-terror-incident-at-gay-club/?utm_term=.ea8dbd03fd50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatesdigimon (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems to come from a police tweet "@ChiefJohnMina Suspect had handgun and AR15 type rifle." Not quite so clear cut, but it's interesting that Adam Lanza also used an AR-15 at Sandy Hook, which he was able to fire once every two seconds for the duration of the shooting as a semi-automatic rifle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See Assault weapon and compare Assault rifle; see also Federal Assault Weapons Ban for the 1994-2004 law. "Assault weapon" is a term used for certain semi-automatic weapons, some of which, like the AR-15, are rifles. "Assault rifle" refers to military weapons capable of semi-automatic and burst or automatic fire. But "assault rifle" is colloquially used to refer to the rifle-type weapons classified as assault weapons, the ones which were banned until 2004, when discussing civilian-owned firearms. Most semi-automatic rifles are not assault weapons, so it is probably better to use "assault rifle" in the article. Roches (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of changing it from "assault rifle" to "assault weapon" I've removed the "assault" portion altogether, since it's also possible to have an AR-15-style rifle that doesn't fall under nearly any definition of "assault weapon" either (i.e. no evil features) and we do not yet know what features the rifle had. Anything else is simply simply misleading and borderline deceitful AFAICT. jayphelps (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does the page show the coordinates 81.376815°W, where they should be -81.376815°W? I can't get it fixed because when you try to edit the page it does say -81.376815°W! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be 81.376815°W? Wouldn't -81.376815°W be equivalent 81.376815°E? Florida is obviously west of the prime meridian. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the underlying (source) text has a negative sign while what the reader sees does not. That may make sense (I'm admitting complete ignorance here); if it doesn't, the place to discuss is Template talk:Coord. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"W" and "-" are interchangeable; just as "S" and "-" are - however they are contradictory if used together. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@John Broughton: Did that. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The source of the revision at the time of your original post [1] does not say -81.376815°W. It says {{coord|28.519364|-81.376815|region:US-FL_type:event|display=inline,title}}. Negative degrees are rarely used for human readers and should never be combined with N/E/S/W as far as I know, so the template correctly writes it as 81.376815°W. A positive number 81.376815 would have been written as 81.376815°E. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't know that, thanx! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 11:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pulse (nightclub)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should we make the Pulse (nightclub) article a redirect to this article? It doesn't seem necessary as a lone article. (Not an RFC, mere discussion). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Subjects that are notable only for one incident are typically redirected to an article about that incident. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge the individual article is less than three sentences and is not independently notable. It can be easily merged into this article and in my opinion it should be merged. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Article says it's undergoing a major restructuring. Should at least wait until that is completed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep, especially while under construction. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is not an RFC. And it seems better as a redirect as stated by Jason. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the proper way to debate a merge. There are procedures for contested merges, or AfD. I should add that the article has three separate events (this, a prior shooting, and the club's inception) and some sources for each, so I'm content to leave it stand. It may be one of the more weakly justified articles, but maybe not - the media can be expected to pour a spotlight on this club now, and whatever their motivation, all that is the kind of data we need to source an article properly, which is the only thing we should ask for in order to keep it. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep separate. Especially, if the nightclub has seen previous history with shootings. -Mardus /talk 06:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Marking this discussion as closed. Editors can discuss at Talk:Pulse (nightclub) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse (nightclub). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photograph / mugshot

He has no criminal record? How does he have a "mugshot", then? Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That file is flagged for speedy deletion on commons: already - it may not be around much longer. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The photo is his driver's license photograph, apparently. I have changed the word "mugshot" (which connotes a booking photo) to the more generic "photograph." Neutrality^talk 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It has been reported that he was licensed to carry a firearm as a security guard. In most states, you will be fingerprinted and a 'mug shot' will be taken as part of the licensing procedure. This may be the source of the photo. Drlegendre (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote from father

As the only person available so far who can speak from first-hand knowledge of the perpetrator, his father's comments seem to me highly relevant to report. He says that it wasn't about religion, and whether you believe him or not, he's a character witness. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.- MrX 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would think that only what the father actually witnessed then, his son's anger toward homosexual behavior, should be included. The father's speculation about it not having to do with religion should be omitted IMO, as it gives undue weight to this baseless claim. Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, baseless speculation contradicted by the shooter swearing allegiance to ISIL. Should be kept out. Father only supports a secondary motivation which explains why this was targeted over non-gay nightclub. Ranze (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, especially with the revelation that the shooter swore allegiance to ISIS, the father's contradictory quote should be removed. I will remove it and if any objections are made they can join discussion here. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove ALL of it, just the part about it not being religious. Father observing hatred to gay men is certainly relevant for inclusion. Ranze (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that's what I'd meant. I only removed that part. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. A man can like ISIS and hate gays at the same time. Perhaps he felt an affinity to ISIS because it famously hates gays. Plenty of people hate gays in a secular way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

But expressing allegiance to ISIS, an explicitly religious organization, is not secular. While his original motives may not have been entirely religiously-grounded, saying the attack had "nothing to do with religion" is false. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And who appointed you the judge of his motivations here? Our role is to report the facts, not just the ones that fit your version of the story. Cherry picking which part of his father's comments to report and which to suppress violates NPOV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIS is primarily an army. It uses religion for recruiting and propaganda. Its enemies play up the "no true Muslim" thing for counterpurposes. A little prayer never hurt winning a war (its goal, after all), but the brunt of the job is in the same sort of mundane earthly pleasures a "normal" army does. Digging holes, driving trucks, shooting guns, getting paid. Maybe he just thought ISIS could use a hand in demoralizing or antagonizing Americans, rather than anything about martyrdom or jihad. ISIS is definitely less secular than ISIS, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

We definitely should include this comment, because it was made and widely reported and relevant. How we interpret that comment... it's interesting. There are a number of articles out about the father now, and I suspect more are coming; there's a lot of bait in the water and the reporters aren't going to leave until every last scrap has been picked up, I hope. We just have to go one article at a time, writing down what we can support with the source in hand. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Victims

I realize the article is new but, the amount of victims killed and wounded should be uniform throughout the article. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is: 50 dead (49 civilians plus the shooter), 53 wounded (52 civilians plus a police officer). 87.114.160.161 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, latest news reports appear to be saying that the figure of 50 includes the shooter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the shooter is a victim as well.- MrX 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep he's dead, but past precedent at Wikipedia articles is to make clear if the figure includes the perpetrator, eg Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

50 dead is fine but we should not say 50 victims. Shooter is not a victim. Ranze (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does it say At Least 50 people killed? Is there a potential for other deaths or is it just Fluff words added? DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

As of now there is no terrorism link, so why is the article in the terrorism category? IQ125 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Many sources refer to this event as an act of terrorism. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The shooter pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. If the Islamic State is not, by definition, associated to terrorism, what is? (Reuters) - Omar S. Mateen, the Florida resident suspected of killing 50 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, called 911 before the shooting and swore allegiance to Islamic State, NBC News said on Twitter.In a posting on its web site, MSNBC said Mateen swore allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. He didn't suddenly become a decent actress. Same backwards deal here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's terrorism. It's also widely being reported as such.- MrX 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because everything you read is true? Kevin McE (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

President Obama's comments were "We know enough to say this was an act of terror and an act of hate," he said. "The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror. We will go wherever the facts lead us ... What is clear is he was a person filled with hatred."[2] No problem with mentioning this as Obama's response, but the investigation will continue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This should be a clear-cut case. No idea why some editors are hell-bent on playing down the terrorist nature of this incident (as stated by government and reliable sources) AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some government and reliable sources. The jury is still very much out. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

The title ought to be " 2016 Orlando Nightclub Muslim Terrorist Attack". 108.38.35.162 (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding 'Muslim' would be editorialising, and would pose the danger of Wikipedia inadvertently becoming responsible for an incease in sentiment against Muslims who are not violent, and against Sikhs who to some people appear 'Muslim', too. The motives of the perpetrator are not yet clear, because sources currently offer conflicting arguments. See discussion in the similar section above. -Mardus /talk 06:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely no, as it uses the old chestnut of "Muslim = terrorist". Like previous mass shooters, Mateen may have wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, and believed that aligning himself with Islamic extremists would allow him to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Which part of what I wrote you're agreeing or disagreeing with? I was specific about not adding 'Muslim' to the title or the lede, because it would be like "Muslim = terrorist". It was not a Muslim attack, because the word Muslim is too wide, and would implicate the whole religion. Rather, I think it was a hate crime apparently motivated by Mateen's homophobia, racism (as reported by father and ex-coworker), and the perpetrator's very misguided beliefs. -Mardus /talk 15:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Terrorism" as defined by Wikipedia could include attacks on gays with the intention of terrorizing gays into ceasing their behavior. Burressd (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I help edit pages?

I promise, I wouldn't mess around, I will add latest info and add references links. Please see this, thanks. OfficialNeon (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

OfficialNeon Certainly you can, however as a very new editor you might not be able to edit the page if it is wp:protected, usually because of vandalism. In that case you need to be wp:Autoconfirmed. 220 of ^Borg 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you've already got the idea about edit requests!. 220 of ^Borg 01:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Voting

OMAR MIR SEDDIQUE MATEEN was born 16 November 1986 and he lives (or lived) at 2513 S 17TH ST APT 107 in FORT PIERCE, St. Lucie County, Florida, U.S.A. His voter ID number is 114484524. He registered to vote 19 July 2006 and he is registered in the Florida Democratic Party. He is listed as Other (race).

Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_U9oyDDIIpgJ:flvoters.com/by_number/1144/84524_omar_mir_seddique_mateen.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.203.135.124 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is similar to WP:BLPPRIVACY although he is dead. It isn't all that relevant and would need to appear in secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should list a street address but mentioning he is from St Lucie would probably be okay, and that he is registers democrat. Ranze (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how being registered Democrat really matters. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not published source, so we can't use it at all. We also should avoid WP:PRIMARY sources in general.- MrX 18:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. Primary sources at not to be be avoided. It is completely acceptable to use them to support basic info. Secondary sources are only needed to state interpretations of that info. Primary supports "he was Democrat" but not something silly like "he did this because he was democrat". Ranze (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, carefully. A document of questionable provenance, posted to the cloud, cannot be used.- MrX 19:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I list an apparent direct link to the source below. However, it may qualify as a primary source for a BLP and still fail. But the data in it is really useful for getting started down the rabbit hole... Wnt (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: I would consider flvoters.com to be a reasonably reliable WP:TERTIARY source because I believe their data is gleaned directly from Florida voter records. The degree of detail that we should add to this article would then be a matter of editorial discretion. His address should not be listed, but his party affiliation may be a point of interest.- MrX 23:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I am reluctant to call it tertiary or secondary because it doesn't correlate more than one source, i.e. the voter records. It's all a very automatic transcription. True, to introduce bad data from the voter registration you'd have to commit a serious crime, unlike with other forms of publication, but in terms of how sure you can be that the data is correct? I mean, it's not unheard of to move and forget to change your registration, for example. I'd like simply to acknowledge it as primary and include it anyway, being careful about interpretation, but that's kind of an IAR against BLP situation. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a non-primary (news) source that both he and Moner Mohammad Abu Salha lived in Fort Pierce, Florida in that article. I would welcome the added detail but I do recognize that Wikipedia shows some resistance to this level of detail. For what it's worth you can find out all kinds of computer generated shite about this unit at Zillow etc ... no idea if this is real or just a simulation though. [3][4][5] (third one is surprising - realtor.com makes it look like a standalone building, not an apartment, in a photo they provide) Note the original source is apparently [6] and they provide data for another person at this address, which I am afraid to try to share here but comes up readily from the street address via Google. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC) With this kind of primary data you can keep digging and find non-reliable sources like [7] - we cannot use these, but they point in interesting directions - says the father was a candidate for president of Afghanistan and former director of the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce Inc; these will be interesting to check out and see if we can confirm! Wnt (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Note: the Afghan President thing is confusing - apparently, it may not be real according to the Washington Post, though he certainly represented himself as such in a long video episode. Him being a former director of the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce is traceable to www*corporationwiki*com/Florida/Fort-Pierce/mateen-siddique-P6268692.aspx (blacklisted here, I should add) which alas is several bricks shy of a load in terms of sourcing, yet really intriguing. Maybe the press will look up the records and give us something. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

I suggest adding the following in the 'reactions' section:

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick responded to the incident at 7 a.m. Sunday by by tweeting "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Galatians 6:7". Following strong criticism for the tweet his adviser Allen Blakemore said that it was an unfortunate coincidence and that 'the post was designed and scheduled last Thursday'. Shortly afterwards another post was tweeted from the account, from Psalm 37:39, "The Salvation of the righteous come from the Lord; He is their stronghold in time of trouble".

Reference for this information: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php

18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done. What a Texas lieutenant governor said is entirely irrelevant. Only reactions from Orlando/Florida and U.S. national officials are listed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Aside from what has already been said, there isn't even evidence that this was a "reaction" to the attacks. As you said, his advisor said it was an unfortunate coincidence. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Time and chance happeneth to them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done This is politician's blather and the consensus is to keep the reactions to a minimum. Texas is not in Florida. Also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Not done non story. A politician's account sent out an automated tweet that was pre-selected with a stock bible verse - this is a non-issue and he deleted it.-- Callinus (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources discussed it, so it might be suitable for inclusion somewhere ... but not here. This is fundamentally a story about that governor and the unfortunate interpretations people put on his Twitter/Bible bot, and if it goes somewhere, it's in an article about him. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently a non-story. The 7am posting not a response to the 2am incident in Florida. Dan Patrick: "This morning, as every Sunday morning for the past several years, we post a verse from scripture. Those posts are chosen in advance and scheduled in advance. As noted to the media earlier, the post from Galatians, that received many hateful comments, was put on the schedule Thursday. Our scripture was not posted in reaction to the shooting." http://www.danpatrick.org/facebook-statement-regarding-mornings-bible-verse-post/ -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

1RR due to SCW&ISIL sanctions

Please note that this article is automatically placed under 1RR restriction due to the ISIL link to the event. Please avoid edit-warring and refer to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL for details.GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be seeking a clarification from WP:AN Arbcom on this, as 1RR is an onerous requirement for an article about a recent event.19:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And very tenuously linked. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Not really needed at the moment. Normal good faith editing is required. Somebody seems overexcitable here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've requested clarification from the community at WP:AN.- MrX 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Victims section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sparse info. Can we expand this as thy identify them? Even before that have the police given a gender breakdown? I figured it was a male gay club so it would be mostly men but I remember reading w woman got shot in the arm so was curious of any of the fatalities were women and how many. Ranze (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-Protected Edit Request on 12th June

Hello, I would like to add the following info:

The agency responsible of the news of the Islamic State, Amaq, claims a IS fighter carried out the shooting. In his earlier statement, President Obama said the US was still investigating any "sympathies" or "associations" the suspect may had had. It is still unclear if the killer had any direct links to the group, (ISIS)

Thank you.

OfficialNeon (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See also

Currently, the see also section displays the following three two links:

• History of violence against LGBT people in the United States
• List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016
• Significant acts of violence against LGBT people (this link has since been removed)

There is some disagreement about whether or not Significant acts of violence against LGBT people should also be included. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Bringing your attention to this discussion in case you wish to add your two cents. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly seems like a relevant link to me.- MrX 18:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained it to you in summary. It's redundant to include broader topic if there's already a link to a more specific one (History of violence against LGBT people in the United States).--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your explanation. I just happen to disagree, hence why I am inviting others to discuss whether or not the link should be included. All three links seem relevant to me, but of course I will yield to consensus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems relevant. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing out what the sources state

Both sources CNN and ABC read that this is the deadliest "terror attack" since 9/11. Yet people keep citing only what they like, i.e., "attack", and removing what they don't like, i.e. "terror." Clearer cases of bias in editing are rarely seen. XavierItzm (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed "terrorist" once. That's a whole other ball of wax from terror, and wasn't supported by the source, aside from what it appeared like to Michael McCaul. If the source says terror attack with certainty, say terror attack or attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Note, President Obama said an "act of terror and an act of hate". Terror is warranted. -- Callinus (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I have been hearing about this guy being an Islamic leader in Orlando and saying some controversial things about homosexuality shortly before the shooting. If sources cover this would it be notable to include?

Do we know the names of mosques that the shooter attended and if (Redacted) has any connection to them? Ranze (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is NOTAFORUM and it's inappropriate to make unsourced speculations about living people.- MrX 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You missed a spot redacting. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Got it. thanks.- MrX 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Not all deaths due to Mateen

I'm reading suggestions in some sources that the police response caused some deaths. The lead sentence may overstate the case. --Pete (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the cops caused any deaths, that'll be revealed during autopsies & will be reported. Then it can be added to the article. Until then, it'd just be speculation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw a report stating this. Trying to find it again in the flood. Good to see that we aren't claiming Mateef was killed by police. --Pete (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Images

The amount and layout of the images is getting messy per MOS:IMAGE. Do we really need all of them? I'm tempted to do some pruning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As of this posting there are 3 images, which I don't think is all that excessive. However, perhaps a good idea would be to remove the generic picture of the nightclub in the infobox and replace it with the picture of the police arriving on scene? Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some images were removed in this edit, which was a good idea. They weren't really adding to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I added the image of Obama in the Oval Office. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Motive?? Comment

Possibly something other than "radical islam". [8] Eteethan(talk) 19:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Perp had bragged about ties to "terrorist organizations" since at least 2013, and was investigated by the FBI at that time. He also pledged allegiance to ISIS during the attack, and ISIS claimed responsibility for it. A month-old incident reported through hearsay from his father doesn't carry as much weight. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's too early to say. If past mass shootings in the USA are anything to go by, Mateen may have been a wack job who developed a fascination with radical Islam. This would create a quasi-Islamic motive rather than a clear cut one. The article already mentions his father's belief that religion was not the direct motive. The MSN article says "While no one may ever know what was truly going on in the head of the man who shot over 100 people at a gay Florida nightclub early Sunday, his family says he may have been motivated by pure hate against the LGBT community" which is one of the more sensible things said in the media today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: At first sight, the Pulse nightclub shooting looks a lot like the Charlie Hebdo shooting or the November 2015 Paris attacks, and Omar Mateen may well have been influenced by these attacks. However, scratch the surface and a typical portrait of a U.S. mass shooter starts to appear. He was a loner, full of anger and had easy access to a semi-automatic weapon with plenty of ammunition. It has all happened before. Substitute the word "gays" for "women" and the Pulse shooting is very like the Luby's shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I see that Islamic Terrorism has been added to the list of motives. The list now looks like Mass shooting, Mass murder, Islamic Terrorism, Hostage taking, Domestic terrorism, Hate crime. Mass murder, Domestic terrorism now look redundant due to Mass shooting, and Islamic Terrorism respectively, and should be removed. Further, Hate crime should mention Homophobia in parentheses. isoham (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, sources only supported him having homosexual men, not fearing them, do not abuse "phobia". Ranze (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Homophobia has been corroborated by the perpetrator's former co-worker, who also added racism to the mix. This and the nature of the locale strongly suggest, that adding 'hate crime' is warranted. -Mardus /talk 06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

L.A. pride festival

Currently, the article says, "A man on his way to a pride festival in West Hollywood was arrested after tannerite, assault rifles and ammunition was found in his vehicle. There is no known connection between this incident and the attack in Orlando, though security at the festival will be increased." Is this appropriate? If there is no connection between these two incidents, I don't think the L.A. incident is worth mentioning. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it should be removed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Removed ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The same text now appears in the "Incident" section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have deleted the name of the killer's ex-wife, who had no connection to the actual events.

Per policy at, WP:BLP "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's action" and "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care".

μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Facebook Safety Check

Not sure if useful, Facebook has activated their Safety Check program for this incident. <ref>{{cite web|title=Orlando nightclub shooting: Facebook activates Safety Check feature|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-facebook-safety-check-the-pulse/|website=www.cbsnews.com}}</ref> — xaosflux ^Talk 20:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The article had mentioned this at one point. I think it is worth noting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It was in the reactions section. I think it's OK to mention it very briefly.- MrX 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it to the article per the discussion here; I'm not sure whether this was taken out accidentally or purposefully, but it's certainly worthy of the one sentence. (It is quite rare for Facebook to active the feature, and its deployment in this case was noted by CBS News, Time, The Orlando Sentinel, and many others).Neutrality^talk 20:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We should be careful about balance here. Is Facebook's reaction more notable than the Pope's? Gh0d I hope not! Wnt (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

List of victims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Re this edit: I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm not sure if a list of all the victims is necessary. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I just re-included this as a statement rather than a list, but the reference goes to an external live list (see note below) — xaosflux ^Talk 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a RS for victims: <ref>{{cite web|title=Victims|url=http://www.cityoforlando.net/blog/victims/|website=City of Orlando}}</ref> . It is being updated following notification of families. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At least not at this point, and not without rock-solid sourcing. I do think an external link would be fine.- MrX 20:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would not put in a list of victims until there is a final list released by an official source (which could take a week or so). If we are to include a list, we should not do it piecemeal. Neutrality^talk 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISIL hasn't claimed shit

The actual quote is here. Even presuming that Amaq is legit and not something SITE whipped up, it doesn't say ISIS claimed responsibility. It just says someone told it that buddy was an IS fighter. This truth was removed as undue. But The Telegraph, which mischaracterizes the supposedly unreliable source remains. The Independent, based on the same, at least calls it "alleged" and notes "an official claim from ISIS has been disputed." But Wikipedia currently looks foolish for not following the original source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Mateen may have been a typical wack job who looked up a few radical Islamic websites and thought "Hey, I can do something like Bataclan." The media is going over the top with dubiously sourced speculation during the first 24 hours as usual.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Katz herself seems to think the media missed the point. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I realize that the claim is dubious. No objection adding "alleged" or "disputed", or removing it altogether.- MrX 20:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the dubious claim and reworded it in a more WP:DUE manner. Hopefully this solves the problem. Parsley Man (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I see a "reportedly" has been tacked on. Not sure if that was the extent of your edit, or someone else's. But now that it's not tagged as dubious, I don't think "reportedly" gets across that nothing of the sort happened. Would it hurt to just say what Amaq said? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I found a source that both quotes the anonymous Amaq message, and three anonymous American officials who say there's no evidence of a connection. That might clear things up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

New death count

CNN reporting on TV that the new death count is 52. 2601:646:9901:AAE0:21C3:2D62:890F:E302 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Headline still reads "50 dead, 53 wounded." United States Man (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

WTLV reports 59, but quantifies that it's "according to Gina Duncan from Equality Florida." 🖖ATS / Talk 21:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando Police Dept Twitter just tweeted "Pulse Shooting: The number of dead has NOT changed. It remains at 50. Please avoid erroneous reporting." --Flipper9 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming here to post that. Thanks! 🖖ATS / Talk 21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved? - MrX 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This has happened many times, and after the initial fuss has died down, the exhaustive flagcruft lists are pruned back to a few notable examples in plain text sentences. This will happen here in due course.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm. Let it run its course, and it will be fixed later. I, for the record, am in support of keeping that section short. United States Man (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That isn't true. There have been many attempts to sneakily "prune" after the event, most have failed. Attempts to "prune" at the Paris or Brussells articles have failed. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only in summary form. I support only two or so sentences along the lines of my formulation here (the current status quo at the article):

Many people on social media and elsewhere expressed their shock at the events and extended their condolences to those affected, including presidential candidates, members of Congress and other U.S. political figures, foreign leaders, Pope Francis, and celebrities. [citations]

I do not support a list (with flags or otherwise), and I especially do not support direct citations to Tweets. Neutrality^talk 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This question is far too open-ended. I think, in accordance with long-standing precedent, the article should include some reactions from major/neighbouring world leaders such as the Prime Ministers of Canada, India and the United Kingdom and the President of Brazil for example. The reaction of the first Muslim Mayor of London would arguably be notable. Reactions of every senator or candidate is obviously not notable. The usual contentious problem of whether to include the reactions of minor countries may not be as present as there has been far fewer reactions than there was for the Paris attacks. I question why the reactions list was removed pending the outcome of this discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  The question is: what is encyclopedic, about a listing of predictable comments from uninvolved people? The answer is: WP:NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. You might as well just copy-paste the same section from an article about a plane crash, and change "plane crash" to "night club shooting".- MrX 20:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• No If someone announces they've become directly involved somehow, beyond thinking and praying, sure. But nobody gains by hearing that so-and-so was as shocked and saddened as the next guy, except so-and-so. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
• Only in summation as per the others. Ian is correct, and many of us have seen exactly the same thing. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Where? AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking through my contribs trying to find it—it was a while ago, sorry. (Edit: I know it was terrorist-related, but I can't find it. You'll just have to take my word for it—or not. ) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only in summary form. I'd agree with summary form only as a list notable people making generic statements and not really pertinent to the article though listing a summary of some key statements later on might make sense such as "World leaders such as () and as far away as () gave their condolences."—--Flipper9 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. The summary form may be acceptable as displayable alongside international reactions. — With an addition, that Republican legislators and the presumptive Republican presidential candidate who reacted, were widely and strongly criticized:

• for having previously expressed sentiments against LGBT people and causes,
• for voting against legislation expanding LGBT rights, and
• for voting against more stringent regulations of firearms, including assault weapons.

-Mardus /talk 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Perpetator" is still a suspect

The article is treating Omar Mateen as he's been fully confirmed a perpetator. But the authorities are still treating him as a suspect even though he was at the nightclub and most likely is responsible. I don't think we should call him a "perpetator" when he's still being considered a suspect by the authorities. That is equal to making our own conclusions. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Several sources call him the perpetrator.- MrX 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Since he's dead he isn't going to sue for libel. There seems to be little doubt that Mateen was the shooter, although some sources are still using the word suspect, eg here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Many news sources will continue to use "suspect" out of respect for a perp's living family members. I speak from experience. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There are strong similarities here to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, where police caused two of the fatalities and all of the injuries. Probably premature to speculate that Mateen was the sole gunman, particularly as we also have reports that the police were firing. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We haven't had any conspiracy theories yet. Where have all the tinfoil hat wearers gone today? Usually they would have turned up by now and said that it was all a false flag operation. It's too early to say whether police gunfire caused any of the deaths, and the media seems pretty sure that Mateen was the only shooter..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Death of victims by the hand of official forces during a hostage crisis has happened before outside United States, while during the aftermath, then officials then blame all fatalities on the perpetrator(s). There's really nothing new in that. -Mardus /talk 07:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We have to use common sense, not legalistic distinctions, because they don't prosecute the dead. There's never going to be a trial. If the cops say he was the perpetrator, well, you can think what you will, but if the reliable sources say he's the perpetrator, we take their word for it. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: List of victims

We have a list of victims of the mass shooting incident in Orlando, Florida, in the article. Shall we allow the list or remove it? --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of full lists of victims, but some people may insist on having one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow for now. As noted in the other RfC, these things tend to trim themselves in time. Based on what I've seen, it will eventually become a summary paragraph with details of the most notable victims. (Full disclosure: I tend to argue for, anyway, based on the argument that these articles can too easily become shrines to the perpetrators.) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For clarity purposes, my !vote refers only to a listing of the dead. If an injured party were to have earned sufficient and encyclopedic notability, that person would get a passage, rather than a spot on a list of injured (that I would oppose). 🖖ATS / Talk 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - not unless any victims were notable in their own right. There looks to be about a hundred dead and injured, and how do we select which to list? All of them? This is going to be some time before a complete and accurate list is available. And what if we list someone as dead according to an early report, and they later pop up unharmed, having nipped out for a private party elsewhere? Or vie versa. We can have a seperate article with a list of victims later on. It will be a long list, sadly. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now. I'd have to say that maybe a separate article listing the dead might be better than listing them in the main article. (yes, yes I know the whole "wikipedia is not for lists" thing) I do think a simple list of the dead is an important part of the article itself, they are part of the event just as much as the name of the perpetrator and the name of the club are. You can then link to notable victims off that if they have their own wikipedia article about them. Just simply linking to the Orlando city website may end up losing the list of dead when it changes. --Flipper9 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow listing of dead. In previous such cases - alas, not this one! - my thought has been that the living are more numerous, so it costs more space to list them; also the BLP and privacy issues are considerably greater. For a living person to have been in a shooting (perhaps especially at a gay event) can be a matter of privacy, but for a person to have died in a place and time is purely a matter of public record. Also, with wounding there are degrees ranging from vegetative state to some cuts from broken glass - with death, there is no debating the severity. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• If It's Wiki's Policy Then Yes. All the victims' names are listed on the Virginia Tech shooting page, as well as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I would assume we'd do the same for the murdered here. As an encyclopedia it would seem logical that this sort of information would be presented. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xenomorph erotica: To be clear, you're talking about the dead victims only with that article. There are almost certainly going to be some truly heartbreaking, ghastly living casualties here, which we will want to discuss in prose; but we should be somewhat more cautious about dragging living people into this unless they have significant press coverage, which is to say, abandoning the formal requirement to fill out every single name for the wounded as a matter of format. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow for now – A am not the biggest fan of including a list of names, but at this point it seems like the best option. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now and if the article needs trimming later, or if we find notability of a murder victim here we can offload. I seriously object to "privacy" comments above, like going to a gay nightclub is shameful while going to a rock concert in Paris or taking a bus in London or attending a party in San Bernardino isn't. Shame on shaming. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment BLP policy applies to the recently dead. Should we be naming people that were at this nightclub? Also, at least one of the named victims, Kimberly Morris, was employed by the nightclub as a bouncer.^[9] Should be employees be separated out from guests? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - this is a clear violation of privacy rights, of the victims as well as of those they leave behind. We must not give lunatics the option to seek out these victims' families to be harassed for having and tolerating gay family members. Also, a list of names holds no encyclopedic information value. Exceptions would only be such victims, who are the subject of existing Wikipedia articles. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow and expand (for the time being), or eventually move into a new article. A published list of victims means that the victims' families have been contacted. Otherwise, the amount of data about the perpetrator is greater than information about the victims. That doesn't mean that information about the perpetrator (in an article about him) should in any way be reduced. -Mardus /talk 07:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per Cush. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No, not for terror attacks that are untargeted. the victims list in the Umpqua Community College shooting included non-religious people and a Jewish professor, showing that it was not targeted at Christians as some in the media were asserting. The victim list in that article made some sense. In this case, there's no indication that the victims were targeted in any way. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the only purpose of a victims list is to show characteristics about the victims (eg whether they were targeted on the basis of religion, or whether they were known to the perpetrator) - not to create a memorial for them. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. The victims were targeted simply because they were people. At a well-known gay nightclub. The perpetrator did not go shoot up an empty building during the day when perhaps cleaning/maintenance was being done and a small number of people were present - he chose a month/time/day when a large number of people would be present so he could kill them. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No - The specific names and ages of the non-notable victims have very little encyclopedic value, and would tend to intrude on the privacy of the victim's families. Unlike newspapers and blogs, Wikipedia has a certain amount of permanence.- MrX 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per Cush and MrX. There would be no problem with summarising such info without using actual names.Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow it. "Per Cush" doesn't really convince me, and by that, I mean NOT AT ALL. These names are publicly viewable. We have lists of victims in articles like Columbine High School massacre and 2015 San Bernardino attack. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How does it contribute to understanding what happened to list the names? These are people, sure, who had names, friends, families, but we are specifically NOTMEMORIAL, which is the principal function of a names list. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be well-established to have a list of victims of mass shootings, see the articles on Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. While some think that it's shameful to have been in a gay club, or be gay, that's homophobia and WP shouldn't countenance it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Because WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable here, so everything related to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL --Norden1990 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to the subjects of Wikipedia article not to internal content. If the perpetrator of this mass-murder is notable (and for WP's purposes right now he is), then in my opinion the people that he killed, giving him that notability, should also be named. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I would also like to mention that WP:BALASPS applies in this case - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject"[bolding mine]. To use the perpetrator's name extensively in the article without mentioning his victims' names appears to give the perpetrator undue weight. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per MrX and WP:5P1. Very little encyclopedic value. I see little rationale for listing the victims that is not emotion-based, "don't elevate the perp above the victims", or "well that's what we did in these other articles"—all extra-policy rationales. A quick visual scan for blue caps shows no policy links in Yes !votes. The list may not be precluded by the letter of NOTMEMORIAL, but I guess the spirit of a policy, added to 5P1, beats no policy at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. --John (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. If 50 people hadn't died, then Mateen would have no notability. His act was notable, the deaths that occurred are what engender his notability, why aren't the names of his victims notable enough to be included within the article describing the event? In the spirit of WP:5P5, "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions". Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow almost all other US shooting pages list the victims, why should this page be any different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:85E7:10C4:9714:BE82 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. To the extent that this has been done elsewhere in the past see WP:OTHERSTUFF and I would suggest that unless the victims were WP:NOTABLE said lists should also be removed. I would also remind the closing Admin that WP:NOT is WP:POLICY and trumps guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No I don't see a list of victims in any other disaster article with many deaths (plane crashes, 9/11, ect). While this event is terrible and sad and our prayers of course go out to the families of the victims, this is still a encyclopedia and this does not meet our guidelines (primarily WP:NOTMEMORIAL) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Individual victims should not be listed here unless there is something else worth noting about them. The perpetrator is a notable figure because of the act, not the individual victims. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bold

The last sentence of the introduction should be bold. Bold--150.216.64.124 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because ...? 🖖ATS / Talk 21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: – Hence, page protection. United States Man (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Cause of Death

The Cause of Death under the suspect's infobox says Suicide. Is this correct, because I had heard he was shot and killed by police.

We need a definitive source, one way or another. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

News media seems agreed that he was shot and killed by police, but there has been confusion in this area in previous mass shootings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done and cited. If something changes, we can fix it. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Suicide isn't a cause of death, anyway, it's a manner of death. Gunshots are the cause, anyway you slice it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

'One of the deadliest' vs 'deadliest' mass shooting

Multiple reports including those listed as sources in this article are describing this as the deadliest mass shooting in US history. Front page of the NY Times literally says 'ATTACK IS WORST MASS SHOOTING IN U.S. HISTORY' Shouldn't the article make this clear rather than mincing words by saying 'one of the deadliest'> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sae123 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to the definition of a mass shooting. See Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we not include something like 'the attack was widely reported' as being the worst mass shooting in US history". The attack breaking the 'record' (if we can call it that) is a large part of why it is receiving so much media attention, particularly outside of the US. Sae123 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a modern public mass shooting where an individual shooter had access to a gun with a rapid fire capability. Comparing it to racial massacres in the 19th century USA is not comparing like with like. People in the USA were killing each other with guns long before semi-automatic weapons were invented, but it is now possible for a deranged individual shooter to kill dozens of people in the space of a few minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

and your point is....? the fact remains that almost the entire Western media is (in my opinion correctly) reporting this as the deadliest mass shooting in US history and that is clearly significant enough to warrant inclusion.Sae123 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

NPR is calling it 'the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history' I agree with Sae123 that until someone publishes a statement to the contrary we should call this the deadliest. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also agree on this point. It has been widely stated and is worth inclusion. United States Man (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit like saying land speed records are unfair because people in the 19th century only had horses and carts. Well they had trains, but anyway.... 50 exceeds the previous highest number of people killed in a single shooting incident. Surely common sense applies here.Mozzie (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent History of Promoting Killing Gays in Orlando

If there is a large group of people who paid to have someone like this speak in Orlando... this attack was a long time coming. Most articles on tragedies cover the background preluding the calamity maybe we need a background section here too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ Ssh83 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree on the background section, but until there's a link between the guy in the video and the perp, it's just speculation - we could just as well put Pat Robertson's video on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Carlos, the link is two-fold: The first is the fact that the shooter's religion is the same as the mosque where the video was made. The second is geographic, because both this mosque and the shooter are in the same region, i.e., east central Florida. - JGabbard (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• • • Even if this wasn't grossly generalizing, it's original research. You need a RS to make this link before we could consider including it. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please wikilink Moner Mohammad Abu Salha

I added a redlink for this article as I found the name, and then someone found a quote that incorporated it but didn't wikilink it, so I added it back, but User:ThiefOfBagdad took it out, [10] saying that the suicide bomber "didn't deserve an article". But this particular suicide bomber was the first American to die in Syria, and his current burst of coverage in relation to Mateen, in addition to publicity over his suicide video in 2014, makes him warrant a biographical article. So I've started it, and you don't have to suffer the horror of looking at a redlink if you use it. (I think redlinks are lovely myself; they invite growth) There's actually quite a bit out about him - I didn't even incorporate everything in the sources I linked, and there are more. So I'd like to get the link back and have some editors build on this article. Both Salha and Mateen lived in Fort Pierce, Florida, and the FBI investigated a connection in 2014 but couldn't find anything. Wnt (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Vigils

Might be worth noting the planning of vigils.

• Stonewall Inn, Manhattan: soure
• Portland, Oregon: source, source

etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL occur to me. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, too many - cities around the country appear to have these spinning up - if there were one at the shooting location (in the future) it may be notable. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Crystal? Events are already being held. I'm watching footage from Stonewall now. And re: NOTNEWS, seems something very general like, "Vigils were held in X city, Y city..." or "Vigils were held throughout the United States", etc. might be appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There are probably going to be a number of these, and listing them all really isn't a great idea. I think a brief sentence about an organized vigil in Orlando would be appropriate in the reactions section.- MrX 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Events already being held—if sufficiently notable for inclusion—would not fall under CRYSTAL; those being planned would. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think wp:recentism applies here. Would vigils be relevant in 10 years time?Mozzie (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just removed an entire section listing minor vigils and commemorations - news reports are showing these popping up nation-wide, I don't think listing every one is notable - a threshold for inclusion needs to be determined (if any). Any suggestions? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ping in to recent editos @LavaBaron: @BrxBrx: — xaosflux ^Talk 01:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How about the threshold be if it meets GNG? You know, like usual ... LavaBaron (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the entire section, at least for now. its not exactly notable, amd wp is wp:notnews. BrxBrx (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the new single line that these are in existence throughout the continent. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, this is how people are reacting to this tragic event. Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, buildings and structures (ferris wheels, spires, etc) around the world are being illuminated in rainbow colors. This may also be worth mentioning, even minimally. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from this article because of the WP:RECENTISM essay. It is not policy and the 10 year rule is a concept from Wikipedia's history that is no longer relevant. It pertained more to the creation of new articles during the early years of the encyclopedia. For current events, articles are edited enough that "recentist" content is removed as time passes. Roches (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to add a sentence about the vigils happening across the country, cited to the USA Today article "Across USA, vigils honor Orlando victims", but it was removed as "not notable". Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A few vigils in one country is hardly notable - and policy is policy, with consensus behind it.BrxBrx (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

But somehow, Kaldari, while your addition about the whole of the USA is deemed by the Vigil Police as "not notable" it's vitally important we retain the sentence that says the Empire State Building went dark. Because New York. LavaBaron (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: It's not just "a few vigils in one country", it's dozens of vigils all over the world.[11][12][13][14] Is there any point at which this becomes a notable aspect of the story? There are already numerous news stories solely about the vigils. I don't think it would be useful to cover all of the vigils separately, but surely some mention of the fact that there are vigils being held all over the world should be included in the article at this point. It's certainly been covered by far more sources than most of the other events mentioned in the Reactions section. Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"pledged allegiance"

We're told that the perp "swore allegiance" or "pledged allegiance" to someone or to ISIL more generally. Just a suggestion we keep an eye on this phrase. Maybe there will be a tape of the 911 call or the police will find a neutral way of reporting what was said. I'm just a tad suspicious of the phrasing, which sounds like someone's trying to make a point. I hope the authorities will provide a quote soon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: So far as I know these loyalty oaths (Bay'at) have a very consistent format. I would not expect any surprises here. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A publication of the recording is still required. -Mardus /talk 07:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Some UK sources are seriously doubting any real involvement/backing from any known organisation, because they don't follow standard format, though UK sources support his 'allegiance' call. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mhm. -Mardus /talk 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I'm seeing a lot of reversions on the article. Four by User:Parsley Man and three by User:ATS. I note that this page is subject to 1RR, as per notice at top. Perhaps the perpetrators could still their trigger fingers a little? --Pete (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll need diffs, please, and an explanation of how anything I've done makes me a "perpetrator" of an "edit war". 🖖ATS / Talk 22:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In regards to what? Parsley Man (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Both of you, go here and do a page search on the phrase "Undid revision". I also direct you to WP:EW, which says, "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." (my italics). --Pete (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

These three edits constitute the entirety of my "undid"s—and each was correct as explained within its edit summary. Please refrain from bullshit warnings and assertions that anyone is a "perpetrator" of anything, or you may be the one facing sanctions. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether you regard your reversions as "correct" or not – and none of the three appear to be exempt – is beside the point. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and you have breached the rule swiftly and repeatedly. I also direct you to WP:CIVIL. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of EW and 3RR is and has always been to prevent the back-and-forth that occurs in an actual edit war. Meantime, as someone who does not consider himself a "perpetrator" of anything, go read WP:CIVIL yourself. 🖖ATS / Talk 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You should direct any further comments to the report at WP:3RRN here. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: It's crazy, but read it from the horse's mouth: [15] It says one revert per editor per article per day. And you don't get dragged to the usual EW board over it, you can get dragged straight to WP:AE where damn near anything can happen (and often does). So you should be careful here. I actually myself have held off re-adding the link to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha that I described below, in case my adding the wikilink the second time would be counted as my revert ... which sucks, because it was taken out because 'we didn't need an article' and now it's a bluelink. But if people are going to be like this, I may get tempted to say adding a bluelink isn't really reverting taking out a redlink, hmmm.... Wnt (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, the EW "prevention" process has been radically rewritten since last I read it, FWIW—no excuse, since I should keep up on these things, however recent, but holy mother of fuck! One per article per day regardless of the content? We've jumped off the deep end.

Nevertheless, it was nice to see that Skyring's effort to make me collateral damage in his "report" was shot down, and correctly so. To block someone for engaging in a good-faith effort to make articles better cannot be more insane! 🖖ATS / Talk 02:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The broad 1RR AE sanctions have been Special:Diff/725000760 removed, for now at least. That being said - not only is this on the top of the main page, and a top search hit; but also both an emotional topic and it does boarder on contentious topics -- so please edit respectfully. We should not be approaching 3RR with any regularity here - please continue to help shine a positive light Wikipedia's coverage of this area as new information becomes available. Thank you to all the editors who have developed this article over the course of the day so far - good job! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 If your change is reverted, it'd be very, very good to discuss here instead of re-reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Many editors seem to wield the revert sword liberally, but reverting good faith edits is not something that should be done lightly. To quote from Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary:

• The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits.
• Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration.
• Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant... Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia.

Reversion is simply inappropriate for the vast majority of good faith edits. There are many better ways to deal with things than reversion. Good faith edits should be only be reverted when the clearly make Wikipedia worse. In an article like this which is being heavily edited, no one person needs to go around policing such edits. Consensus will remove them pretty quickly. I think it's pretty amazing that the article has reached this standard within hours of the event. This is something that we have achieved together!Mozzie (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I should probably note here that at least two of my edits were, rather than reversions, restorations of edits that appeared to get lost in edit conflicts. 🖖ATS / Talk 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ATS, I don't think you were doing anything wrong, apart from being uncivil about it. You got mentioned because you made three reverts on a (then) 1RR article. Parsley Man is up to fifteen reverts in less than six hours, but I'll let someone else look at that if they wish. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

... which is why you attempted to make me collateral damage in your properly shot-down report after calling me a "perpetrator"? Uh huh. Meantime, if this is your definition of uncivil, you need to grow a thicker skin, because I could not have been more correct. 🖖ATS / Talk 02:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You should avoid making personal attacks. You made three reverts to an article then subject to 1RR. If I reported PM for making four reverts, then it would have been unfair to leave you out of it for making three. Sorry you're taking this personal, certainly not intended. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"You should avoid making personal attacks", says the attacker. On the talk page of an article about a mass murder committed by the perpetrator of an actual crime, you called two editors "perpetrators" of a nonexistent "edit war". Now would be a good time to step away from your illegitimate effort to paint yourself as a victim of something, and step back into actually contributing to an encyclopedia. Or is that not why you're here? 🖖ATS / Talk 04:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The police officer (and patrolcar) was deployed outside the club or ...

Should the article be more clear about where the first responding police officer was deployed to? Should the article be more clear about the police officer being stationed at one of Orlando's police stations, but deployed elsewhere? 178.232.222.245 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have some information we don't have. Can you provide a link to a source about what this deployment issue is? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My question was a difficult way of asking: Was the first responding police officer stationed (or deployed to) outside the gay bar, or near it, or inside. In some countries it is a strange concept that police officers can be stationed inside a club (or gay bar) rather than being stationed outside/near a club, while sitting in the squad car - or standing next to it. 178.232.9.184 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Track record as security guard

Co-worker: Omar Mateen homophobic, 'unhinged' Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been incorporated. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wounded Knee

With all due respect, I doubt this should be labeled here as the deadliest shooting in the US. The Wounded Knee Massacre was far deadlier, see this link among others. Let's please change this. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think most understand it to be non-military, but maybe the article needs to say that. United States Man (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, mass shooting does not refer to battles where both group snare shooting at each other. American Revolution, Civil War or 1812 encounters could eclipse Wounded Knee if you go that route. Ranze (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The same thing I was thinking. I thought it was common sense to know that this wasn't military, but I guess not. I'm on the fence on if this should have some kind of note saying that this is the largest non-military shooting. United States Man (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wounded Knee Massacre was not a battle and any attempt to claim otherwise is ignorant and extremely disrespectful. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not a battle, but still a military conflict during a "conflict/war." That disqualifies it from "mass shooting" territory. United States Man (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ranze & United States Man - Consensus rules but I am not sure many/most sources have stated the Wounded Knee Massacre happened during wartime and was an armed conflict. Just from these comments, I think you can see people might disagree with your assessment of Wounded Knee as a military action. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources out there calling it the deadliest/worst in modern U.S. history. A lot forego the distinction, too. This article said "modern" earlier today. You'd think Fort Pillow sounds a nicer place than Bloody Island, but they were both pretty bad. What seems to set this apart (aside from recentism and racism) is the single gunman. Wouldn't hurt to clarify that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that must be added. After reading Sandy Hook talk page discussions, that seems to be the best qualifier. Events like Wounded Knee were mass shootings, regardless of the larger conflict, I find it very disrespectful to ignore that. Right now as it is, it's plain and simple misinformation. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, but it'll almost certainly be broken again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've seen many reliable sources describing this mass-murder by using the qualifier "in modern US/American history". I think a sentence to that effect was in the lede earlier today. Owing to the fast-moving nature of this news, I think describing this mass-murder as "worst in modern American history" is in-order, because the descriptor is what many reliable sources are using. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

War-time or peace-time and military conflict or mass-shooting aside, I do agree that including "modern" here would be a good idea. United States Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See also Baker–Fancher party incident on, ironically, September 11, 1857, when at least 120 civilians were murdered without it being part of a war. One mass shooting, multiple shooters: Mormons and supposedly Santa Clara Indians killed people in a wagon train in Utah Territory, which was not a state,but was territory of the United States.Edison (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we please change this on the Current Events page for today's date too? Thank you. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, "modern" raises the question: what do you mean by "modern"? Modern history starts in the early 16th century.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned that, I was actually wondering the same thing myself. "Modern" can be pretty vague if you think about it. I really just don't know what to do, so maybe someone else can figure it out. United States Man (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of "modern" - "since the previous larger event" or "since the beginning of the republic". 178.232.232.150 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'Modern' may probably mean starting from the 20th century, or since the time the United States became whole. -Mardus /talk 07:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wounded Knee Massacre occurred in 1890. The republic was well established; the United States were "whole". It was almost the 20th century. What people really mean is contemporary history, but that's equally hard to define. The dividing line is arbitrary, and the statistic is rendered meaningless. Perhaps it would be better not to say it at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on contemporary history. Slightly disagree on whole, since there was plenty of activity right after WWII. The cutoff time for modern could be the interwar period or the start of WWII. And the reasons for disagreeing with whole: Philippines became independent in 1946. The Constitution of Puerto Rico was approved and ratified in 1952. Alaska became an organized territory on May 11, 1912. It was admitted as the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959; Hawaii was converted from territory to state on August 21, 1959. But after that, the U.S. territory was set. If we exclude all the former, then after WWII, it was the smaller islands, like Guam, that saw lots of activity. -Mardus /talk 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadliest single gunman shooting, the "Wounded Knee Massacre" was not a single gunman shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:85E7:10C4:9714:BE82 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Related incidents

I think it would be a good idea to add two "related" incidents into this article. These include the shooting-suicide of a prominent singer in under 24 hours in the same city, and the discovery of another man with explosives who "wanted to harm the gay pride parade". These incidents may not be related, but the are similar, and should be included.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36507546

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 June 2016

I'm not so sure that it would really be necessary to help the article at this point, but I would like to hear others' opinions on this matter. United States Man (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Those all seem too circumstantial at the moment. Parsley Man (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Parsley Man; there is little linkage between the events other than geography (in one case) and the sexual orientation of the victims/intended victims (in the other). Linking the articles would seem to be an attempt to suggest otherwise. General Ization ^Talk 00:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed one of these from the article earlier - unless a reputable source shows a topical link between these, I don't think this article is the place for those entries at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that the statement that the person arrested in LA "wanted to harm the gay pride parade" has been withdrawn. He evidently made no such statement. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/man-with-weapons-explosives-arrested-was-going-to-la-gay-pride-parade-police-say/ar-AAgWTAx?ocid=ansmsnnews11 Opus131 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction

This is quite a bit of an WP:UNDUE issue where it's concerned. Is it really necessary? Parsley Man (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Dump it. Not helpful or necessary. United States Man (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. No candidate reaction should be necessary. Only the POTUS should count in this case! Keep the article neutralRhumidian (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. This isn't the place for this.Mozzie (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::Well, after Democrats' reaction was added, it does seem necessary now for a WP:DUE standpoint. Parsley Man (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Never mind. Parsley Man (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The best thing would be to get rid of both sides and leave it to a few main statements. United States Man (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I also think we should remove the Bob Casey Jr statement. A lot of people are calling for gun control, so attributing it to one person is borderline promotional. I removed it once, but was reverted.- MrX 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The gun control aspect is definitely a notable aspect (as it always is in all of these cases), but the Casey statement can go. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. We can have a generalized cite to a secondary source that briefly summarizes the differences in response between the parties (if there are indeed any, and if their are reliable secondary sources that discuss it). But we definetely shouldn't have candidate-by-candidate breakdowns. One editor keeps a quote or text re: Trump's statement, cited to his campaign website (a WP:PRIMARY source). The same editor misleadingly used that cite to support an assertion about the "Republican position"—which is of course inaccurate, as Trump does not speak for every Republican. I've removed it, but this needs more eyes on it. Neutrality^talk 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lots of Republicans have argued that Trump doesn't speak for any of them ... 🖖ATS / Talk 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction should be included, whether we like it or not. It has received too much media coverage for us to ignore it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lets wait a few days before doing that at leastBrxBrx (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? We have a "Reactions" section and the man likely to become the next POTUS reacted, with specific policy guidelines (temporary ban). Even The New York Times published an (anti-Trump) article about it. This should not be redacted from the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If we include Trump's reaction then we might as well also include Clinton's reaction, and maybe even Gary Johnson's reaction. Just so we know we have all bases covered. FallingGravity (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

29 March 2016

MrX edited my post above when I named this man, calling it speculation and BLP violation, which is inaccurate.

So I have chosen to name this section after the date he came to Orlando to speak. Will use his initials, FS.

Articles have already come out after this shooting making a connection to the Spring talking event and the parallels to this Summer violence:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/gays-must-die-says-muslim-at-orlando-mosque/

http://fusion.net/story/313063/orlando-terror-attack-muslim-lgbt/

This bears considering mention in the article as part of the response. Ranze (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

wnd.com is not a reliable source, and it predates the shooting anyway, so it can't be about it. I'm not sure if fusion.net is considered reliable, but I also don't see any definitive connection between the speech and the shooting. I would definitely want to see better and more sources before including anything about this in the article.- MrX 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

MrX is completely right. No reliable source has yet reported on this in connection with the shooting. (And no, "WorldNetDaily" is not a reliable source). Wait for a reliable source. And please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead section reversions

I made an edit to the lead section as per MOS:BOLD, from:

On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. At least 50 people, including the gunman, were killed and 53 people wounded.

to:

The Orlando nightclub shooting of June 12, 2016 was a mass shooting in which approximately 50 people were killed and 53 people wounded. The shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

However this has been reverted twice now by User:Parsley Man and User:Jujutsuan. Please note several points from the manual of style on lead sections:

• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.
• Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
• If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.

I will not re-revert, but some change of this style should be made, and it needs to stop being reverted.Mozzie (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was more desirable not to have the title in the first sentence, but I guess not. I will put that back in. United States Man (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mozzie: thank you for bringing this to the talk page - further development may be warranted and this is the place to hash out stylistic changes. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: and @Jujutsuan: Do you have any insight in to making this lead as useful as possible? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no need for bold here, since the name is not a "formal or widely accepted name." It's just the name we've given it. Neutrality^talk 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, looking at MOS:BOLDTITLE, I came to the same conclusion that bolding isn't desirable. United States Man (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and way up at the top of this page, there is discussion on changing the title. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What about the other elements, that the title should be the subject of the sentence? (fyi: the subject comes before the verb.) As for a widely accepted name, I think the matter is grey. We can put the emphasis on most accepted or most widely accepted, or widely recognised. I favour the latter: any reasonable person would accept this name. It may change over time, for example if the article is moved, but it is more consistent with the general Style of Wikipedia.Mozzie (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have re-edited the text to make the title of the page the subject, as per consensus in this discussion but have not added bold. I have also removed the bold comment tag in the code.Mozzie (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mozzie: I did not mean to deliberately revert your changes. It must have been a casualty of an edit conflict that I resolved poorly and in a rush due to the flood of edits coming in. My bad. As far as I'm concerned, that lead edit looks fine, but do defer to any consensus that develops here. Best, Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jujutsuan :) Mozzie (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll go in and rearrange the lead section again. At present the first sentence is very complicated with six ideas ideas (date, terrorist shooting, location and death toll plus the inclusion of the shooter and the wounded toll). This violates WP:BEGIN. Also The sentence needs to be arranged to place the title as the subject of the first sentence. The Orlando nightclub attack (subject) of 12 June 2016 (prepositional phrase) was a terrorist mass shooting (object) that resulted in the deaths of 50 victims(clause). I'll split the information about the wounded and the location into difference sentences to simplify the first. Could any contributors who want to change the lead section please read WP:BEGIN and make changes with this in mind.Mozzie (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignore the above, someone else has fixed the lead sentence.Mozzie (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2016

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → 2016 Orlando nightclub attack – Since this has been classified as a terrorist incident, it should be moved to attack via Wikipedia precedent on these kinds of things. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. Do research something before arriving on a conclusion. Also please see WP:OTHER, you cannot use other articles for justifying changes to another article. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - That does sound sensible. Parsley Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems prematureBrxBrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. the events are less than 24 hours old. Perhaps reconsider after a week or two when more information is available.Mozzie (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Also: I suspect the page title needs to lose the 2016 at some point, but that can also happen later.Mozzie (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral – Since this seems to have been labeled as domestic terrorism, a move to "attack" to be in line with others, notably San Bernardino, is in order. But I would prefer that it wait until details are ironed out. United States Man (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's wait a week and then evaluate what the sources say and what terms they use. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's both a shooting and an attack, but shooting is more precise.- MrX 01:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As per Neutrality, I would like to see what creditable sources call this event. However, the current title satisfies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per MrX. Doesn't matter much, but shooting seems clearer. "Attack" doesn't have to indicate terrorist attack... whatever that means. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Shooting is a misnomer by implying there was just one or very few victims. This was a terrorist attack. Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral It's a tossup between being WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT. Neither is particularly more compelling IMO. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - Alternatively, I propose "Orlando nightclub massacre." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 June 2016
• Strong support – per 2015 San Bernardino attack. Cut to the chase. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is first and foremost a mass shooting and Mateen may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It would be unencyclopaedic to use different name for similar things. 2015 San Bernardino attack, the Curtis Culwell Center attack, 2014 New York City hatchet attack, the September 11 attacks. All Islamist terror events in the U.S. homeland. XavierItzm (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was leaning toward weak oppose per NORUSH but, after reading all the above, I'm convinced it'll happen anyway. 🖖ATS / Talk 06:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Partial Support Alternatively '2016 Orlando Attack' or 'Orlando Nightclub Attack'. Tom W (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tomwood0: '2016 Orlando attack' would mean an attack on the whole city of Orlando, and 'Orlando Nightclub Attack' is not specfic enough (see below). -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There was another shooting associated with the same nightclub in 2013. -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, premature rush to judgment. We don't have to get the title right within 24 hours of the event. Or 48, 72, 96, or 120. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also support "orlando nightclub massacre". It's being used quite a bit. These names for recent events develop organically and I believe this is it.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per 2015 San Bernardino attack. President Obama calls this one an "act of terror" - "attack" is warranted. -- Callinus (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. At the moment the only certainty is that this is a mass shooting from someone who may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings. The present name is clear and precise. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the casualties of the shooting is the highest (for a mass shooting as currently defined) in the history of the United States, overtaking (for lack of a better word) the previous second place, the Virginia Tech shooting. Ergo, precision should dictate here.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please respond: "Motive" still not known

Nobody responded to my comment, please respond and discuss. Also stop editing my comments and don't move it. It's not allowed to edit other people's comments especially when they don't want it.

As I said earlier- The article mentions Islamic extremism as motive, but the actual motive hasn't been confirmed by authorities even though Mateen had pleadged to the ISIS. This act might simply be motivated by homophobia and we shouldn't simply label it as Islamic extremism especially since the real motive it isn't confirmed and just because it is homophobic doesn't mean it's automatically extremism. It could be both even. I don't see any of the sources saying that Islamic extremism as the motivation was confirmed, I suggest we avoid mentioning any motive until authorities confirm it. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I just recently removed the motive(s) since they will not be known until the investigation concludes.- MrX 01:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

PERHAPS the deadliest terrorist attack.

I've met a few people today who don't seem to understand uncertainty. The Washington Post article footnoting the "deadliest terrorist attack" bit doesn't say it was. It says "the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning appears to represent the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. It may also mark the doubling of the number of people killed in America by a terrorist motivated by Islamist ideology in the years since September 2001."

And then it flat-out says "The shooter's ties to terrorism are not yet fully established." I won't revert it anymore, but hope that the bold font sinks in and someone else either reflects the source or finds one that backs what they want to say. Wikipedia appears smarter that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

The CNN reference reports "the nation's worst terror attack since 9/11". If there is still ambiguity (or better yet if anyone can point to a specific contradictory article) then I'm fine for moving it back to the assumptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Act of terror, yes; terrorist attack, unknown at this point.- MrX 01:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I realized we have a different interpretation of this sentence - you are questions if this is "terror" or "not terror" - not if there was a undisclosed other more deadly terrorist attack in the interim, which is what I was trying to clarify. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No objection to reversion of that until it is clear the nature of the event. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Terror is simply strong fear. Terrorism is the practice of using that fear to make change. When politicians and the media want to invoke the spectre of terrorism without technically lying, they say "act of terror" or "terror attack". And it seems to work! But they're completely different words. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

If there is not consensus that this is a "terrorist attack" please reword - I was only trying to reinforce that if this was a terrorist attack , it was indeed the deadliest since 9/11. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is it's still undetermined, at least by people trained and paid to solve crime. Rather than say perhaps, I've just said it was the deadliest attack since September 11. That much is certain, regardless of why. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

'Deadliest attack since 9/11' and 'deadliest shooting on U.S. soil in modern history [or living history]'. Something like that. Both can be used. -Mardus /talk 07:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Please change the sentence from this: Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer declared a state of emergency for the city and asked Governor Scott to request a state of emergency.[67][68]

New Sentence---> Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer declared a state of emergency for the city. Governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency in Orlando County.

http://saintpetersblog.com/rick-scott-declares-state-emergency-orange-county-orlando-shooting/ http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2016/06/12/85791790/ http://www.khou.com/news/gov-scott-declares-state-of-emergency-in-orange-county/240848929

Shortyfore (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Incorporated, thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

a sentence about all the vigils?

Maybe a sentence about the one in Orlando and then a second about the dozens of others? Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See also: Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting § Vigils

---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Revise Mateen's infobox, take out "Killings" header

Having a "Killings" header under the shooter's infobox, followed by the number of people he killed and injured almost reads as if it were acknowledging his accomplishments or giving him credit/praise. Though it is well-meant, this infobox section should be revised to give less attribution towards the killer and his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzo9 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

it may be an awkward heading, but it can't be changed here. It's part of Template:Infobox criminal.- MrX 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Section begun. 🖖ATS / Talk 02:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

In the Casualties section, the sentence "another 53 people were critically injured" should read "another 53 people were injured", as the link provided does not say "critically" anywhere.

Scran4d (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack section

Under attack section, there is a statement, It is unknown WHEN the gunman killed the victims. I feel what the author was trying to write is It is unknown WHY the gunman killed the victims. Please clarify. Darreg (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That statement in the Attack section reflects the uncertainly expressed in the Reuters article quoted: "The Florida shooting evolved into a hostage situation, which a team of SWAT officers ended around dawn when they used armored cars to storm the club before killing the gunman. It was unclear when the victims were killed." NameIsRon (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Darreg, there was a three hour gap between the initial round of shooting and the final law enforcement assault. Reports from neighbors, etc. only mention shooting, and/or explosions, and/or screams just after 2am and just after 5am. The 2am part was at least three rounds of shooting. 1) The initial attack. 2) The suspect tried to leave, got into a gunfight with police, and reentered. 3) More shots were fired shortly after he re-entered. From 2am to 5am it seems there either were no shots fired or the shooter was able to suppress the sounds enough that they were not noticed in the area. After the assault it was thought the area was booby trapped with bombs as a remote camera spotted a device. This delayed entry and assessment of the victims until it was determined the device something that had fallen out of a smoke detector or an exit sign. Thus it makes sense it's not immediately known if a victim was killed around 2:00am or 5:00am. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Gay bar comes first

Pulse on its Facebook page presents itself as a Gay BarTemplate:BolddotDance ClubTemplate:BolddotNight Club. We are presenting it as a nightclub. This needs to be refined. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources overwhelmingly refer to it as a nightclub. You do realize that it can be all three things at once, right?- MrX 02:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty trivial and downright silly to be discussing this particular subject at this point. Nightclub is fine. United States Man (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On their Facebook page, they needed to include all the major categories that they thought people might be searching. Their own web site uses the term "gay night club" in the graphics on their home page, and "gay bar" in the text. I don't see a contradiction or need for an edit here. NameIsRon (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Omar Mateen fork

Do editors feel this fork is appropriate? Does the section about Mateen in this article summarize the newly-created biography article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a classic case of one event. All the content about the perpetrator should go here, and the name should be redirected to this article. All the notability of the individual is related to the attack (this is particularly true since he is dead, and therefore there won't be a trial and so forth. I expect the page will go to AfD, where I would support deletion. Neutrality^talk 03:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

From the policy you cited:

In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

He already has lots of references just on his own page. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not yet. It's too soon for such an article. We can wait till more information comes in, if any, then we'll see if it's enough justification for a separate article. Parsley Man (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(copy of reply from merge discussion) WP:TOOSOON is an invalid argument here. There are plenty of RS with provisional details, and the article will continue to be edited as fresh info comes out. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Anything else? Parsley Man (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's assume Mateen's article stays and, therefore, so does the Main article: link here. I propose we lose the infobox. 🖖ATS / Talk 03:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it warrants staying still, due to the severity of the attack, though his personal page should talk about more than just the attack. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history"

The lead states "deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history." I'm not sure why a link to the history of the United States is relevant but, more importantly, I don't see why the use of "modern." The term "mass shooting" as used here is restricted to one (or at most a few) perpetrators, and I can't find any evidence of a more deadly mass shooting in US history, period. There may have been events termed massacres that caused more deaths, but that is a different act of violence where one group attacks another group. The use of "modern" leads to the question "when in pre-modern US history did a deadlier mass shooting happen?" Roches (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I had earlier supported "modern," but now it just seems to be the wrong way to go with this. I think we should just go back to "deadliest mass shooting" with the understanding that attacks/events involving Indians, military, and numerous shooters are not included. United States Man (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's really hard to say, since mass shootings weren't exactly one of the main topics covered in the news during the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s. Parsley Man (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This topic was already discussed fairly extensively above; There have been a number of massacres with higher casualties. For a better overview, I recommend looking at the previous discussion, under a similar header to this. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, many people have been killed in shootings in the USA in the past, but they weren't carried out by deranged individuals with a semi-automatic weapon that occurred within a few minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The part is question has been changed by me to say this:

The attack is the deadliest terrorism-related mass shooting in United States history,[14] the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history,[15] and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

How is that? Better? Worse? Could probably be better, but the "modern" is gone. United States Man (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's better. The discussion above was about "one of the deadliest" and was resolved with "modern." On List of rampage killers, only the 2011 Norway attacks has a greater number of fatalities than this shooting. As far as I can see, all the Massacres committed by the United States, such as the Wounded Knee massacre, were very different events than what is now called a "mass shooting". The massacres with greater than 50 people killed occurred during wartime and/or with armed persons among the victims; they were not surprise attacks on random victims by one or a few people. Roches (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [Clarification: 'with greater than 50 people killed'.]

This Smithsonian article about Howard Unruh is worth a look. The "Walk of Death" in 1949 is generally considered to be the first modern mass shooting by a deranged individual in the USA. This type of incident is not the same as Wounded Knee. There is a clear psychological profile of a person who does something like this, and Mateen already seems to fit in with it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this is different from the Wounded Knee massacre doesn't resolve the issue. The Wounded Knee massacre was still a mass shooting, i.e., the shooting of a large number of people. There is nothing in the text that explains or qualifies that this concerns a lone gunman, a "rampage killer" etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at definitions for "mass shooting"? The definitions vary, but in the broadest sense, it's an event where a mass of people are shot. By that definition, Wounded Knee is definitely more deadly. Similarly the Orlando event can be defined as a massacre by many definitions. I've edited the lead to be more clear about a single gunman, which leaves no ambiguity here. More discussion is yet needed. I should note a few reliable sources, such as RT, do consider Wounded Knee a more deadly mass shooting. Misinformation by the media to sensationalize topics is far too common. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, this paints an interesting picture. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Title

Change the Title to "2016 Orlando nightclub massacre". The word "shooting" used to describe the incident is too broad and loose. "Massacre" seems more appropriate. --Alsamuef (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems likely that all of the people who died were shot, which isn't a great surprise given the ease with which powerful guns can be bought in the USA. There is also a rename proposal at Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Requested_move_13_June_2016.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people were shot. But that seems secondary to the fact that it was a massacre. Unless there is a reason why the means of the massacre is more important than the massacre itself, the title should be reworded to reflect its nature and significance. Shootings occur daily in the US, but that doesn't make them really significant. What makes this incident significant is that the outcome was a massacre, not just a shooting. Alsamuef (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's something of a grey area, as Wikipedia has Luby's shooting although it is often referred to as Luby's massacre in the media. Wikipedia does have Port Arthur massacre (Australia) as this is the WP:COMMONNAME of the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine shooting... I think "massacre" is a sensationalist word, and many articles use "shooting." A "massacre" evidently is a mass killing of a group of people by another group. The lists of massacres vs. lists of rampage killings state this distinction. Roches (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This incident actually caused a widespread reaction and interest precisely because it was a massacre, not because some tabloid is being sensationalist. The fact that other articles use the word shooting don't make the word "shooting" in the title of this entry the most suitable, only consistently less suitable. Alsamuef (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Shooting relates to how the mass killing was performed. The Waco siege is titled as such, with a redirect from Waco massacre. The massacre part would come in, if there were very different or multiple means used by the perpetrator to kill the poor people. -Mardus /talk 16:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A "Shooting" does not imply a massacre or killings in the first place. There was a hostage situation in this incident and yet nobody is referring to it as the "Orlando hostage situation" or whatever. Because that's not what made the incident notorious. Shootings by themselves are not notorious in the US, they occur almost daily. The precise way how the massacre was carried out is quite irrelevant to the definition of massacre. I would refer to the definitions found in reputable dictionaries instead of making up arbitrary definitions. Alsamuef (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggest we wait a week and then survey reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed statement from Daily Beast

I have removed this: "Conversely, a former high school friend and coworker said that despite reports of Mateen's homophobia, he had no obvious conflicts with him and other coworkers who were also gay." This is an anecdotal report from Daily Beast and it is not necessary to tell the other side of the argument with someone's recollections. Roches (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a reliable source & shouldn't be removed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

IS as "perpetrators"

I want it on record that ThiefOfBagdad has repeatedly added IS as "perpetrators" to the infobox of this article. It is inaccurate and inflammatory, and I will nuke it on sight. 🖖ATS / Talk 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, English is not my first language. Didn't the shooter say he's part of IS? Doesn't that mean they're the perpetrators? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No. For something that controversial we need a stronger demonstrated connection than a few of his words. Like something from IS, or his training with IS. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's simply not supported by the sourcing at the moment. Any crank can say online "I'm a member of IS". It's a safe bet that IS in Syria had never heard of this guy until yesterday.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. Mateen is the perpetrator, and the sole perpetrator, by all accounts. While he apparently pledged allegiance to IS prior to the shooting, it would still be irrelevant if he was directed to commit the attack—and, even then, he is the sole perpetrator if in fact he was the only one killing people.

Meantime, my apologies if I was unnecessarily harsh. I would ask that you read the edit summaries made by anyone who reverts an edit so you know why the reversion happened. 🖖ATS / Talk 06:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the sources say he "pledged allegiance to IS" and refer to him as IS inspired. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but does this loose inspiration justify pinning the deaths on IS? I think not. Address that in body prose where it's possible to explain it fully, not in the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree that it should not be included in the infobox. I assume ThiefOfBagdad was acting in good faith, agree with the revert by ATS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks. Good faith all around. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Anybody who expects to see a pay check from the Islamic State to its terrorists or an e-mail address @islamicstate.gov in order to attribute these sort of terrorist attacks to the Islamic State hasn't learned anything. Here is a RS clarifying the obvious: Islamic State claims responsibility for Orlando nightclub shooting. XavierItzm (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This clarifies nothing other than a group making a claim which has not been proven, as of yet. So far all evidence is that the guy was just unstable. Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Police officer: In uniform or "plainclothed"; seperate paycheck from the nightclub

Should the article say if the police officer was uniformed or "plainclothed"? "Working extra duty", is that a euphemism for working as a security guard, and receiving a paycheck from the nightclub? 178.232.232.150 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, "extra duty" means a business pays the local police to assign an officer to their location or event. Will depend on local practice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Get rid of "2016" in the title

Years are usually only added when there might be some confusion to what attack is being reffered to, as usually the attack is something very general like the "Paris attack", which could refer to a lot of things. But what would "Orlando nightclub shooting" possible be confused with? Other articles like the Curtis Culwell Center attack and the Charleston church shooting obviously don't include the year in the title because it's very specific. So can we get rid of the "2016" in the already long specific title? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much standard practice to have the year in the title as it adds clarity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm... my initial reaction was similar to ianmacm's, but I'm questioning that. Do we really need that degree of disambiguation? 2016 Orlando shootings or Orlando nightclub shootings would work I guess. Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire isn't 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire after all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Add to that example Columbine High School massacre and Boston Marathon bombing. But then there's also 2012 Aurora shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering the examples so far, I would change 2012 Aurora shooting to Aurora theater shooting. So for me it looks like removing 2016 is OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, exactly. Nobody who's gotten to this page ever thought "Oh no, I was thinking of the 2014 Orlando nightclub shooting", because none of that exists on Wikipedia or real life. We shouldn't be overly specific on Wikipedia either. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed "2016" myself. True, there may have been no other prominent shootings at Orlando nightclubs, but "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" is still clearer and more precise than "Orlando nightclub shooting", as it removes any possible ambiguity. Furthermore, the "2016" part indicates that the event is significant among events that occurred during 2016 - without it, readers are left with a name that doesn't truly indicate the importance of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with It's pretty much standard practice, Ian. For just one example, Umpqua Community College shooting, and I've no doubt I could produce ten more recent ones if I had the time. As for clearer and more precise, sure, and it would also be clearer and more precise to say "2016 Orlando, Florida nightclub shooting", since we otherwise might give the impression we're talking about a night club named Orlando. WP:CONCISE should be our guide. If no disambiguation is needed, we don't disambiguate. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, The inclusion of 2016 in the title won't make anything clearer since there's nothing to clarify regarding the year. Unnecessary verbosity in the title. Alsamuef (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not verbosity in the least. "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" helps indicate the importance of the event - a title such as "Orlando nightclub shooting" doesn't indicate the importance of the event at all. A "shooting" could refer to the murder of a single person, for instance. So it's a poor title. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that it has zero support in the guidelines. We generally don't make 'em up as we go. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors are always expected to use common sense. In this case, I'm using my judgment, and it's telling me "2016" should not have been removed. Your reply is really not relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your reply is really not relevant. Ok, done talking to you. @Ianmacm:, I'd suggest we start RM now, as the quickest and most efficient path to resolution. Didn't notice that other RM in progress, buried deep in the TOC forest. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, You may have a good point re "shooting". "Massacre" may be better and is being used by major news sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• AFAIK, there was a similar, albeit much smaller shooting in or near the same place in 2013. -Mardus /talk 08:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I support this, having the 2016 in the title is like telling people that this is an event that this happens every year. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fussed on this and will support the consensus. However, please let's not have any more changes to the article title unless there is a clear consensus over a period of several days. There is already a formal discussion running on this and it should be allowed to run its course.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines are certainly relevant, Mandruss, but WP:CONCISE says, "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." "2016" is relevant information, and its inclusion in the article title does not make it unreasonably long. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the people searches for "Orlando nightclub shooting" not "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" but ok. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'Fully support' removal of redundant 2016 in title. Mootros (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removing 2016 from the title as unneeded disambiguation.- MrX 10:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose If people had read Pulse (nightclub), they'd see there was apparently a "major" shooting at that nightclub in 2013. Of course, people are lined up to AfD that article, at which point you can go back to merging this without disambiguation because what could Wikipedia not know already? Wnt (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article for the other shooting, and from the looks of it there never will be. It's so "major" the one citation for it is the online archive of a local hardcopy newspaper. We don't need to disambiguate from things not covered at Wikipedia, and we can do so if and when the need arises. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In this case I think the best move is to the title Orlando nightclub massacre, which follows in the footsteps of Columbine High School massacre, where far less people were killed. If anything qualifies as a massacre, it's this. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong support: Utterly redundant. There is no confusion as to which shooting. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move to "Orlando nightclub shooting" due to concerns about 2013 shooting at same venue. Support move only to Orlando nightclub massacre. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move to "Orlando nightclub shooting" due to concerns about 2013 shooting at same venue. On the fence regarding: Support move only to Orlando nightclub massacre. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - In my experience we don't disambiguate unless disambiguation is needed, and we don't disambiguate from things that don't have Wikipedia articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep 2016 — The club was the scene of a shooting already in 2013 (article paywalled), so 2016 matters a lot. -Mardus /talk 16:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Would moving to Orlando nightclub massacre be acceptable to you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Usually the "2016" would only need to be here if there was a prev article (2013 in this case) however there is no article and so there's no need to disambiguate - I don't mean this in a disrespectful way (and I apologize if it comes out that way) but yes the 2013 was obviously important etc etc however as it doesn't (and will unlikely to) have an article here it shouldn't have any relevance to the naming of this article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Unless we're going to move this page to include Pulse (the location's name) like some of the other notable mass shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc...), I cannot support removing 2016 in the article title. Yes, there may have been a previous shooting at the same venue, but we currently don't have a page on that and therefore that isn't the major concern (and in fact if a move to Pulse nightclub shooting or something similar is made, we can incorporate the previous shooting into that article). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Attack section preceed the Shooter section?

IMHO it seems like we are glorifying the shooter a bit. Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the attack section should come first, as it was originally. Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Boldly restored original chronology, which was changed w/o discussion. Anyone desiring the alt chronology please discuss here. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No real opinion either way, except that avoidance of glorifying the perp is never a goal at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Avoidance of "glorifying the perp" may be a consideration per WP:NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Merely a gay friendly nightclub

Are there any references from experts in the field, explaining why this is not merely a gay friendly nightclub, rather than a gay nightclub? Are all the "gay claims" leaning on the club's opinion on its website? What about the massacre at the Paris concert - was that a 5 percent gay concert venue ( and 95 percent other)? If everybody else jumps from the "mountain of encyclopediocity", what would you ... 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If one was married and had children in college, (and was a guest) and then died at the nightclub - would that under any circumstance mean that the person was gay? 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The media immediately described it as a "gay nightclub", with the club's own website being the major factor. It will be interesting to learn how many of the victims were gay men, as they may not all have been.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If a massacre occurs at a Christian church, and some of the patrons are non-Christians, that doesn't mean it isn't a Christian church. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Did the club have an ordinary business license or did it have a gay bar- or whatever business license? In many countries a Christian church will have to file as such, for tax purposes - but probably not so in Saudi Arabia. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any difference between an "ordinary" bar license and a gay bar license. What matters to us is that virtually all primary and secondary sources refer to Pulse as a gay bar or gay nightclub. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The list of victims already suggests that a fair number of the victims may not have been gay men. However, the Pulse website describes itself as "Orlando's premier gay night club" and this is probably why it was chosen as a target. There must be plenty of other night clubs in Orlando.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps gay friendly would be the most encyclopedic term. First and foremost this is an encyclopedia; if notable opinions from experts are lacking - in regard to the difference between "gay-friendly bar" and "gay bar", then wikipedia can decide to say "gay friendly bar/nightclub, often called 'gay bar/nightclub' in folksy parlance". There are plenty references to the folksy parlance (or the media). Are there enough references to support that the bar/nightclub is in fact "gay friendly"? 46.212.238.28 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The white-washing of the anti-gay hate crime nature of this attack continues. This is a gay nightclub. Not "gay friendly". Of course, straight people are admitted as well (often with gay friends). Sources have described this as a gay nightclub and overwhelmingly recognise the anti-gay hate crime nature of this incident. We should as well. AusLondonder (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources indicate that it's a gay nightclub, not a gay friendly nightclub, though I'm not sure what the difference would be. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism?

The label Islamic Terrorism has been repeatedly added to the infobox as a description for the type of shooting. I'm not aware that investigators have arrived at such a conclusion. Most recently, Darkside Of Aquarius re-added it with this source: [16], which as far as I can tell, doesn't support such a determination at all.

I would like to get other editor's thoughts on whether we should label the shooting an "Islamic Terrorism" shooting, or not. Please indicate your support or opposition below.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

• every reputable news source is reporting that this attack has a clear Islamist motive, it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs)
• We have about as much reliable sources calling the motive "homophobia" or a "hate crime" as we do calling it Islamic terrorism. Either we should abstain from indicating any motive whatsoever until sources become more refined and explicitly clear, or Islamic terrorism should be included alongside homophobia/hate crime. So I support it, conditionally. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs). --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• He pledged allegiance to ISIS. He celebrated as 9/11 was happening. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And if true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• I have not yet seen a reliable source that plainly makes such a claim. Several have speculated, but speculation is not fact.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I just made a post below at the same time as yours, saying pretty much the same thing. While he apparently made a phone call saying that he was in ISIS, there is no evidence that he actually was. His father claimed he was homophobic and not particularly religious, which doesn't fit the bill for ISIS members normally. Religious extremism means that they are very religious. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources do call him a "devout Muslim". Also, his father's claims that it "wasn't religious" can't really be taken seriously, especially now that he's released a video saying "God will punish those involved in homosexuality". — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also oppose, this is largely due to media hype. As I've said, the media was not plastering "Christian terrorism" over the front pages after the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Wade Page and Omar Mateen are both lone wolf extremists. The consensus is that the ISIL link is thin and dubious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

But the difference here is, Wade Page never claimed allegiance to a known (Christian) terrorist organization; Mateen did. Also, from what I've read it doesn't seem that Page's religious identity is even confirmed. Many white supremacists are now non-religious or have reverted to neo-European paganism and deride Christianity because of its Middle Eastern source. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, this CNN cite is instructive: "The man responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was described by an ex-wife as emotionally unstable, had been interviewed by the FBI over potential terror links and pledged allegiance to the ISIS during a 911 call, sources say. And a former co-worker of 29-year-old Omar Mateen, who authorities say killed 49 people in a massacre at an Orlando gay nightclub early Sunday, claimed he saw the attack coming. "He was an angry person, violent in nature, and a bigot to almost every class of person," said Dan Gilroy, who was a security guard alongside Mateen for about a year between 2014 and 2015, according to CNN affiliate WPTV-TV. Gilroy, a former police officer, said Mateen's behavior was so concerning that he quit working with him." This sounds more like George Hennard Mark Two, with a well known set of psychological traits for a mass shooter in the USA. However, the definition of a terrorist is always in the eye of the beholder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose using Islamic terrorism and Islamism/Islamist, because officials are making claims on condition of anonymity, the event was hailed by one or two IS-related organisations only after the fact, and a video of the perpetrator (per title above) suggests motivations based on strong homophobia. In the same vein, "act of terror" (used by officials) and "terrorist attack" (use avoided by officials) are two different beasts, because of the way the terrible event was organised. What gave the perpetrator the inspiration is not what aided and abetted his actions. -Mardus /talk 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I think that if somebody pledges allegiance to ISIS, it is safe to say there is An Islamist motive. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I pledge my allegiance to ISIS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI should at your door any time now. JOJ ^Hutton 14:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamist motive" is not the same thing as "Islamic Terrorist". We still need sources that plainly say he was an "Islamic terrorist" or that the attack was an "Islamic terrorist" attack. Anything else is WP:OR.- MrX 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so. I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The text "39 people were found dead inside the club, with another two people found dead outside" doesn't match the total given elsewhere. Can it be updated, clarified, or removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Those numbers are based on the Orlando Sentinel timeline (the second ref), but it appears to be the only source with that accounting. General Ization ^Talk 14:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bit of a puzzle, as it is in this source. Possibly the other victims died later in hospital. Thoughts from other editors on this, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism - A fact

The gunman pledged allegiance to ISIS. Regardless of whether or not he was in contact with the organisation, he is clearly sympathetic toward them and carried out the attack in the name of an Islamic organisation. This is clearly a terrorist attack, perpetrated by an islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes, of course it is. And it will be fought tooth and nail on here, so be prepared for frustration.  :-) 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are cases where people have joined radical Islamic organizations, spent months in training with them, and then done wicked things. This isn't one of them. The "pledge of allegiance" may have been due to mental instability, and the ISIL claim of responsibility is dubiously sourced. Like it or not, some people in the USA have easy access to semi-automatic weapons. Omar Mateen was one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mental instability doesn't preclude one from carrying out an act of Islamic terror. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On this issue, Ian, I totally disagree with you. Sorry. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't just keep using original research to make sources say something that they haven't said. Adding the word "clearly" to your arguments doesn't make such speculation factual.- MrX 14:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so? I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim and his history though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another source here: "Despite Mateen's 911 call expressing support for Islamic State, U.S. officials said on Sunday they had no conclusive evidence of any direct connection with foreign extremists. "So far as we know at this time, his first direct contact was a pledge of bayat (loyalty) he made during the massacre," said a U.S. counterterrorism official. "This guy appears to have been pretty screwed up without any help from anybody."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because a terrorist is a lone wolf, it doesn't preclude him from committing acts of Islamic terror. I don't understand how anyone can realistically claim there wasn't a religious motivation in here. It's sheer insanity. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

History is rife with people claiming a religious motivation for heinous acts when their true motivation was eventually shown to be something else (profit, accumulation of power, reinforcement of ego). Let's not take a murderer's word for what was his true motivation, barely 24 hours after the incident and before any investigation can establish his motive. General Ization ^Talk 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He had already been under investigation by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 as a potential Islamic Extremist with links to terrorists. This is clearly a persistent belief of his, and his Islamist leanings have seemingly showed up in his history. The fact he declared that he was carrying this out in allegiance it's Islamic State is evidence enough this was an attack committed by a radical Islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's important to stick to what the sources say. The attack has been described as domestic terrorism by Orlando Police and as an act of hate by President Obama. However, as WP:OR says, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Donald Trump has used the phrase "Islamic terrorism" [17] but law enforcement officials are wary of using this type of terminology without clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Obama didn't even call the San Bernadino attacks Islamic, so I'd take his assessment with a grain of salt. The sources say that he made a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They also state he was known to be a radical Islamist by his coworkers, and the FBI. He was also investigated for potential terror links. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Or an act by someone who thought it would be cool if he was perceived as an Islamic extremist rather than someone who was mentally ill or who simply wanted to experience the thrill of killing a large number of people. Once again, there is at this time no good reason to accept his word for his motivation. General Ization ^Talk 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI - "Daniel Gilroy, a former police officer, worked as a security officer with G4S Security at the PGA Village complex in Port St. Lucie. Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen worked the shift right after Gilroy at the complex's south gate. Gilroy described Mateen as a devout Muslim who brought a prayer mat to work and prayed several times a day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.15.191 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. And from that you want to describe his acts as Islamic terrorism? That (suggesting that if he prayed and went to Mosque, his violence must be evidence of Islamic terrorism) is precisely the problem. People who are devout, and people who go through the rituals that would make them appear to be devout, are entirely capable of doing things that are motivated by something other than their religion. General Ization ^Talk 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I must reiterate, that there's a difference in terminology (I'm not going to try to see if capitalisation is correct with some terms): "islamic terrorism" and "terrorist act" both suggest aiding and abetting by an islamist organisation; whereas "act of terror" suggests a lone-wolf action based on a different motive. -Mardus /talk 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They imply nothing of the sort. Any perceived implication is an issue on your part. Islamic terrorism is terrorism inspired by Islamist beliefs. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So much for "facts". Fact. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to venture a meta appeal to common sense here. I have 3 years and 24K edits, and I wouldn't presume to argue much with the agreed judgment of General Ization, MrX, and ianmacm, who have 27 years and 150K edits between them. I've had extensive exposure to two of them, and some to the third, and I think I can say that they pretty much know what they're doing. Hope this helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox

Do you agree? --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Most certainly. General Ization ^Talk 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. - MrX 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - motive should remain empty until it becomes clear. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, motive is traditionally the most difficult aspect of any mass shooting. It is rarely as clear cut as the media would have you believe in the first 48 hours after the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The perpetrator's self-declared motive is not necessarily the correct one. The motive must be stated by reliable law enforcement sources close to the investigation. Otherwise it is only acceptable to state motives under consideration, and not in the infobox. Roches (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep motive empty (until after very reliable information crops up), because if the parameter value were not empty, then someone would eagerly tack on their own interpretation per original research. -Mardus /talk 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They are being less cautious over at Omar Mateen, both about motive and other things, (I fixed the most obvious). Kudos to those advocating restraint here. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Wait until the FBI confirms. Neutrality^talk 17:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1. Hell, +2. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Jkeec regarding this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Image of shooter

Please don't post this asshole's picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.197.225 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This is another perennial subject of debate. Is it glorifying the killer and giving him the fame that he wanted? WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. In the past, images have been removed because they were non-free and failed WP:NFCC, but the driver's license photo is public domain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The image is currently nominated for deletion on Commons, and it's a licensing dispute again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

AP now reporting Islamic motive

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b265896ee37e42039a859e38cf1a3afa/fbi-orlando-gunman-had-strong-indications-radicalization Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop putting a motive inside the "attack type" field of the infobox. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a type of attack. Perhaps it should not be REMOVED Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a motive. A type of attack is bombing, shooting, hostage taking... --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What does this source offer that is not already well known? was likely inspired by foreign terrorist organizations ? Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet more proof this is ISLAMIC in nature. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note, Comey said "There is confusion about his motives," in one press conference (businessinsider) The 911 call was described as "bizarre". Comey noted that ISIL is openly fighting Nusra.

Note that if a Sunni Muslim expresses support for Hezbollah (Shiite) then it may be an act of intimidation/boasting.

Note that there is no evidence of he received any weapons, funding or assistance from outside groups.

Maybe wait for Comey to say something clearer over the next 24 hours? -- Callinus (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My spider senses tell me this person was just another typical frustrated american who takes his liberty to gun people down. Yes, there are religious motives and he did seek guidance from ISIS but they seem more like convenient excuses in his particular situation. excuses which are compatible with his life. there is a very good chance this person has no official terrorist connections, and was just an average immigrant. typical frustrated american. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course "spider senses" are not a credible source (they are not meant to be) but this actually is the most likely scenario. It's very sad how so many frustrated Americans have nowhere to turn and nothing to do. So much is spent on punishment and imprisonment and police and hardly nothing is done about proper care and prevention.....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semantic but important point: it's Islamist terrorism, not Islamic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe eve there is a distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to be terribly rude, but thankfully your belief does not influence the definitions of the words. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism needs a move. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can be as rude as you wish, User: EvergreenFir, it does not offend me. But I am most likely right in this case, I really do believe this is domestic terrorism. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@....SandwitchHawk....: I was speaking to Darkside Of Aquarius regarding rudeness and the definition of Islamist vis-a-vis Islamic. No offense intended to you. @Mandruss: I ain't touching that one... I looked at the move log and that was enough to scare me away. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Twas a kind of sideways way of saying, "Current Wikipedia consensus disagrees with you." I'm sure you know that article titles rule on questions of naming, so we're stuck with Islamic whether we concur or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Using Proper Grammar

The last sentence of the summary section is a run-on sentence. Please correct this:

Mateen pledged allegiance to the organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during the attack, though investigators have not yet found evidence linking Mateen to the group, and cautioned that the attack may have been ISIL-inspired without being ISIL-directed.

To this:

Mateen pledged allegiance to the organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during the attack. Though investigators have not yet found evidence linking Mateen to the group, they cautioned that the attack may have been ISIL-inspired without being ISIL-directed.

 Done but the actual run-on was worded a little differently, so I reworded accordingly. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Ali Muhammad Brown be included in See Also?

An Ali Muhammad Brown reference may be relevant, as he was an Islamist extremist and American citizen who targeted, and shot and killed, two gay men (as well as two straight men) in a series of shootings in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.16.117.174 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

tourists and foreign nationals on vacation visiting Orlando

Do we know just yet how many victims of other countries were murdered, by this hate filled follower of Islam ?

I heard there were three Mexican nationals executed by this Islamist. Were there any victims from Spain or South or Central American Countries who happened to be vacationing in North America too? Orlando is a big tourist stop, globally as well as with North Americans because of the theme parks and climate, and location close to the Space Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.219.127 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI of related AfD - Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

As it is relevant to this article, I'm letting folks know that I nominated Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and comment if you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

accurate count?

The following sections in the article give conflicting information.

"Once the officers got in, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside.[19][24]"

"At least 49 people were killed; approximately another 53 people were injured in the shooting, with many requiring surgery in local hospitals.[34]"

"Thirty-eight people and the perpetrator were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven people pronounced dead later at hospitals."

The first count, 39+2=41. The second states at least 49 were killed. The third, 38+1, indicates 39 dead at scene, plus 11 at hospital for 50. If you add the hospital total to the first count, 41+11=52. I know numbers are going to be off until all details are in, but we might want to add a note that counts are an estimate at this time, because I'm not certain which count here is right. Coolgamer (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The first is based on the Orlando Sentinel timeline cited at the second ref. The second and third are more or less in agreement, as the second excludes the perpetrator while the third includes the perpetrator among the dead. I'm in favor of removing the first, as only one ref among many makes that accounting (which is already discussed above at #Number of deaths). General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary Discussion

I believe the final sentence of the summary is out of place.

Mateen had made 2 trips to Saudi Arabia for Umrah in the preceeding years.

This fits better under the "perpetrator" section as it has no direct involvement with the actions that happened at the nightclub. While it loosely fits where it is at now, it reads poorly. (a.k.a. sounds bad when you read in your head)192.91.173.36 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: It is actually already there. I recommend deleting the summary section sentence.192.31.106.35 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Removed from lead, ref moved to the statement in the section on Mateen. General Ization ^Talk 21:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack type in Infobox - Please read

Ok everyone... This is the deal. Attack type in this article's Infobox refers to the type of attack meaning the weapons used - guns. bombs. whatever... It does not refer to the motives or if the attack was some specific type of terrorism.
From Template:Infobox civilian attack:
type – The type of attack (e.g. Suicide bombings, Bioterrorism, etc.)
So. "Attack type" does not refer to motive or terrorism or delineating what type of crime this was.
Therefore, according to Template:Infobox civilian attack, which is itself one of the subsections of the Manual of Style. all the references to Murder/Terrorism/Crime that are now listed under "Attack type" do not belong in that section. They should be removed.
Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this especially since many of those topics either overlap or are not necessarily supported by current sources (especially all this debate about terrorism). For the time of this discussion I am going to remove them because they are against guidelines though if this discussion finds otherwise they may be readded. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree based on instinct. But Bioterrorism in the example only muddies the issue. Why didn't they say "biological agents" or something? Bioterrorism is a terrorist motive for the use of biological agents. So the letter of the doc doesn't help the case much. A better case, imo, is that the "Motive" field is a better place for those things.
And then only after motive has been more clearly established. As usual in these things, people need to s l o w ..... d o w n .
So, yes, I support removal of Domestic terrorism, Hate crime, and Islamic terrorism from Attack type at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. They should be removed.- MrX 22:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Turkish newspaper in Reactions section

There have been various version of the following added to the reactions section:

Yeni Akit, a Turkish newspaper close to the current Turkish government published a headline calling the victims as "deviant" or "perverted" which in turn was criticized by foreign media outlets.

The seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS to me. The reactions of one newspaper in Turkey is trivia and does not warrant their own mention (WP:WEIGHT), even if the reaction is counter to the norm. Unless this becomes bigger news, I don't see the need to include this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I agree. It's insignificant and forgettable. Let's leave it out.- MrX 22:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen celebrated as 9/11 occurred

Mateen celebrating as 9/11 occurred is a further indication that this was Islamic terrorism & not just a random nut job. It was almost certainly also a hate crime, but both elements should be noted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)